Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy White Paper

Stephen Ladyman: If the White Paper on energy will take account of energy sources for transport.

Brian Wilson: The energy White Paper will be published shortly and will take account of energy sources for transport.

Stephen Ladyman: The Government's figures suggest that 12,000 to 24,000 people a year are killed as a result of burning hydrocarbons, at least half of them by motor cars. Although shifting to liquid petroleum gas will help in the short term, that is still derived from scarce fossil fuels and will not eliminate greenhouse gases. Will the White Paper plot a clear course towards a hydrogen economy, and will it be brave about where that hydrogen will be made?

Brian Wilson: I very much agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. He is right about LPG, which is useful in the short term. I am very anxious to encourage its use. It is better environmentally, and can be a cheaper fuel, especially for people in peripheral areas. For that reason I support LPG. There is no doubt that hydrogen has much more to offer, if not in the immediate term then perhaps by 2020, when vehicles using hydrogen fuel cells might be in commercial production. In the meantime, we can do a lot to encourage the technology. For instance, some buses using hydrogen fuel cells will be introduced in London next year through the green fuel challenge. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that hydrogen will be exempt from fuel duty for a limited period. We are doing a lot already, and although I do not want to pre-empt the White Paper, I assure my hon. Friend that what we are doing is very much in the spirit of what will be proposed.

Crispin Blunt: The White Paper has been subject to the most inordinate delay. First it was going to be published last year, then at the turn of the year, then in the new year. Last week, Lord Sainsbury, the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, said that it would be published in the spring, and now the Minister has told the House that it will be published shortly. Are we to take it that both those statements are correct and that they represent the current position? Is the Department's definition of Xspring" the same as its definition of Xshortly"? If Lord Sainsbury represents the official position, will the Minister say on exactly what date the Department thinks that spring begins? Is not it the case that all the procrastination that I have set out means that the White Paper will not be comprehensive, and that the Government's energy policy will continue to be marked by muddle, confusion and short-termism?

Brian Wilson: Where I was educated, spring is normally defined as February, March and April. I do not know whether that helps the hon. Gentleman. The Tories might work to a different calendar, as well as belong to a different planet. The White Paper will be with us shortly. There has been no inordinate delay. It deals with very important issues, as we are looking at the future of energy supply in this country up to 2050, not just for the next few years. It is better to get that right than to worry too much about in which month of spring the White Paper will be published.

Michael Clapham: Will my hon. Friend say whether the White Paper will set out a sustainable future for the indigenous deep coal-mining industry? Will that sustainable future be based on an aid package that will focus on investment? There is a rumour that the package may be based on regional selective assistance. If so, that would not be appropriate for the coal industry.

Brian Wilson: We are committed to an investment aid scheme in principle. We went to Europe to get permission for such a scheme, which would benefit the indigenous coal industry. We would not have done that if we did not intend to introduce the scheme. The future of what remains of the indigenous coal industry is not entirely in our hands, for geological reasons as much as any other. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am acutely aware of the importance of the deep-mine coal industry, and indeed of the surface coal industry, to those communities where the industries still exist. I have no doubt that that importance will be reflected in the White Paper.

Magazine Covers

Andrew Selous: What recent representations she has received about the regulations governing covers of magazines displayed in shops.

Melanie Johnson: None.

Andrew Selous: Many of my constituents with young children are very concerned about the increasingly lurid covers of magazines such as FHM, GQ and Maxim. As those magazines are not deemed to be pornographic, they are often displayed at children's head height. Will the Minister assure the House that she will ask all magazine retailers to put such magazines well out of the eyesight of young children, as it is difficult for families to avoid those displays, especially when calling at petrol stations?

Melanie Johnson: The teenage magazine arbitration panel monitors the sexual content of teenage magazines, 25 per cent. or more of whose readership is made up of girls under 15 years of age. I think that that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point. The guidelines that it produced are the publishing industry's own standards, but they were produced in co-operation with magazine publishers, editors and retailers, and approved by the Home Office. I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall refer his concerns to the relevant parties and ask them to address them.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend will also be aware that it is not just children who are offended by these things, but many hon. Members and constituents, who ask why on earth magazines such as Stuff and T3, which are about technology, have to have women on their front covers. I dare not buy them in shops for those very reasons. Perhaps those concerned would sell more magazines if they took women off the front covers and concentrated on the issues inside the magazines.

Melanie Johnson: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. We are particularly concerned that the young and more vulnerable members of society should be protected from potentially harmful material. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the legislation and voluntary agreements in that area. I hesitate to be slightly cynical, but I am sure that it has something to do with the fact that it still sells magazines, unfortunately.

Wind Energy

David Borrow: What actions her Department is taking to support the expansion of wind energy in the UK.

Brian Wilson: Last April, we introduced the renewables obligation, which provides an assured market for renewable energy, including wind power, for 25 years. In October, I announced capital grants of #10 million each to the first two offshore wind farms to be given consent. In November, the Department launched a consultation document, which set out options for a major expansion of the UK's offshore wind potential both within territorial waters and beyond.

David Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I wish to raise a particular problem that will arise if we seek to increase massively the amount of energy derived from wind power. Most of the parts of the UK that are most suitable for wind power are those furthest from centres of population, requiring major investment in the national grid to ensure that the electricity generated in that way can be used. Will my hon. Friend examine ways to ensure that that investment takes place, whether by fiscal means or by direct subsidy?

Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no point in generating electricity if it cannot be taken to the markets where it is required. We have a very strong infrastructure, but it is based largely on the old coal and steel economy. If we are to have a much more distributed range of generation, we must have an infrastructure to match. It is an essential part of the overall package that that infrastructure is put in place.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that not all of us are enthusiasts for wind farms? Many of us think that they are pure vandalism, ruining beautiful parts of our country, and that there should be very strict planning controls on them.

Brian Wilson: I accept that such a point of view exists, although I regard it as extreme and unreasonable.

Paddy Tipping: Is it not the case that two thirds of planning applications for wind farms are withdrawn because of planning difficulties? When the White Paper is published—soon, shortly or in the spring—is this an issue that my hon. Friend intends to tackle?

Brian Wilson: A balance must be struck between the legitimate rights of people to object and the country's legitimate needs for renewable energy. The White Paper and the ongoing work by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have to look at whether we have that balance right. People in all parties and none who pay lip service to renewable energy as a good thing should implement that view by supporting renewable energy projects, rather than joining the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) in his somewhat one-dimensional opposition.

Michael Weir: Following on the point raised by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), given that the Government have been prepared to invest massive amounts of money to bail out British Energy, are they prepared to put similar direct public investment into the national grid to ensure that we obtain the full benefit of wind and wave power in the future?

Brian Wilson: I am puzzled by the first part of the question. The Scottish nationalist candidate in my constituency, where there is a nuclear power station, wrote to the local press last week to say that the nationalists are fully behind what the Government have done for British Energy, but whereas there are two nationalists and two opportunities, there are at least four different points of view.
	There is no such comparison. I personally think that someone would have to be particularly foolish to draw that analogy. The one thing that people cannot do with nuclear power stations is turn the key and walk away. The Government have not poured money into British Energy; we have loaned money to British Energy to ensure security of supply and the safe operation of nuclear power stations. We are pouring money into renewable energy sources for excellent reasons, which is why there is such an upsurge to meet our targets for 2010.

Bill O'Brien: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on the development of wind power, but does he accept that 10 per cent. is only a part of the need for the generation of energy? Will he consider giving the same support to the coal industry as he has given to British Energy and wind power? We need to have a balance, and the coal industry is part of that balance.

Brian Wilson: I agree entirely that coal is part of the balance. That is why we have had the operating aid scheme during the past few years, since the Government came to office. It is also why we have now put in place the potential for an investment aid scheme—we have won that argument in Europe—and, as I said earlier, I do not think that anyone believes other than that there is a place for coal in this country's energy mix. There is also full recognition of the continuing importance of coal in those places where it continues to be mined.

Rural Post Offices

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the rural postal network.

Patricia Hewitt: DTI Ministers and officials regularly receive representations from a wide range of people and organisations about postal services and the network, including rural post offices.

Anne McIntosh: I understand that a rural post office is defined as one that serves a community of fewer than 10,000 people. As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the Vale of York has a number of post offices serving such communities. Royal Mail has written to me this week and assured me that there is a downward trend in post office closures, from 125 in the same six-month period last year to 65 this year, but that is still a very high figure. Will she take a personal interest in reopening post offices in villages, such as Sessay, where a young couple operates a farm shop—appropriate premises and people—and take a favourable view? Will she also give the House an assurance that the red post box in rural communities will continue for ever?

Patricia Hewitt: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that post office closures in Yorkshire have fallen from 50 a year to just 21. The #450 million of new funding for rural post offices recently announced to the House will ensure that we can continue to reduce the number of rural post office closures—something that the Conservative Government never did—so I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that. She referred to a village post office in particular, and of course I will ensure that Post Office management take a very close look at that because the fund that they are already making available, along with more of the #450 million that we are putting into rural post offices, is precisely designed to help to keep open and, in some cases, reopen rural sub-post offices by combining them with village shops, pubs or other community facilities. We have had a great deal of success already, and I will look specifically at the village that she mentions.

David Taylor: As successive generations of my family ran our village post office for most of the 20th century, I am particularly disappointed by what I view as a breach of faith, which has led to the closure of about 1,000 village offices in just three short years. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that, when the #450 million lifeline ends in 2006, we shall not just return to a haemorrhaging of village offices, with all the consequent social and economic disadvantages for the elderly, the disabled and people without transport in those communities?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of post offices in rural communities—something that he knows better than many people. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we have already put an obligation on the Post Office, which is no longer allowed to close a rural post office unless it is completely unavoidable—in other words, nobody can be found to run it. As a result, we have already halved the number of rural post office closures across the country. As I have just said, we are putting in an additional #450 million to support that, on top of the Countryside Agency grants that already help to keep rural post offices open. Of course, we shall look at the situation again in 2006; we need to see how effective we are with the #450 million that we are allocating over the next three years and we can then consider how to continue to keep that vital local service open.

Vincent Cable: May I take the Secretary of State to task for serious discourtesy this morning in releasing, an hour ago, a written statement that has far-reaching financial implications for the rural post office network and the network in general, without giving us an opportunity to question her in an oral statement and without even referring to it in answer to a supplementary question? Can she confirm that, in addition to the #450 million for rural post offices, she proposed this morning an extra #1 billion in the form of emergency assistance to the post office network to save it from immediate financial collapse? As #420 million of that money is in the form of short-term loans, can she explain how those loans are to be repaid, since the post office network has been deprived of its main source of income generation?

Patricia Hewitt: I announced in June the total funding package for the Mail's business—the use of the #1.8 billion of accumulated gilts and interests—and of course that was done by way of a written statement. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness made a written statement to Parliament, which was tabled in the Library at 9.30. That statement sets out the details of that very welcome financing package for the whole business. About #2 billion of accumulated profits and interest, which in the past was creamed off and returned to the Treasury, is now being made available to the business as part of the entire restructuring plan that will return the Royal Mail to sound health. That includes debt financing on commercial terms of just over #1 billion, which will allow the Royal Mail to implement its renewal plans, and of course those loans will be repaid as the Royal Mail, through its restructuring, sorts out its finances. The rest of the money will be used to support the post office network.

Meg Munn: Does not the future of rural post offices depend entirely on the funding stability of Post Office Ltd? Does not the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made mean that the financing position of Post Office Ltd. will be much more stable? Will that not benefit urban post offices in areas such as mine, which struggle to continue to provide a service to elderly and disabled people who cannot get to other post offices to collect their benefits and pensions?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. What we have done—starting with the appointment of Allan Leighton as chairman—is to ensure that the Royal Mail and the Post Office as a whole have the leadership, management and financial stability that they need in order to return the business to financial health. All Members of the House understand that rural sub-post offices are, in many cases, not commercially viable. That is why, over the next three years, as part of the overall financing package, we are putting in #450 million specifically to support the rural network.
	As regards the urban network, the urban reinvention programme means that by reducing the number of post offices in areas where there are too many sub-post offices for the number of customers, we can ensure that sub-postmasters make a better living and that customers continue to be served. The package is very good for the Royal Mail, sub-post offices and, especially, for our constituents—their customers. I am sure that the House, which welcomed the statement that I made in June, will welcome the details today.

Tim Yeo: The Secretary of State has exploited the new system to make a written statement when she should have made an oral statement, and has now amplified that without allowing hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to question her properly. What she has announced is the spending of profits made by the Post Office in the years of the Conservative Government. That is not new money in any realistic sense.
	To return to the subject of the question, rural post offices, does she understand not only that the Government's decision to abandon the Horizon project undermined rural post offices but that the preparations for the card account are now in chaos? Will she confirm that the personal invitation document, which should have been circulated to post office customers by the start of this year, has been delayed until 25 March, only six days before the new system is due to start operating? How will vulnerable people in rural areas, who depend on collecting cash benefits from their local post office, be protected?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. People who want a post office card account simply ring the helpline, and if they decide that they want the card account, the application is sent to them. The post office card account and the broader universal banking services—and the migration to automated credit transfer—are on track, as we said that they would be. Not only will they deliver a more efficient benefit payments system with much less risk of fraud but, above all, they will enable all our constituents who want to continue getting benefits in cash at the post office to do so, whether through a card account, a basic bank account or the increasing number of other bank accounts that can also be used at the post office.

Harry Barnes: The opening of a post office card account is not as simple as the Secretary of State has just described. People must ring a helpline and answer a set of gruelling questions; they are then told to use their current account if they happen to have one, which is incorrect, and to write in in connection with that. If people want to join a bank through that system, all they have to do is tick a box. Why cannot they just tick a box in connection with the post office card account?

Patricia Hewitt: The helpline exists to ensure that all claimants understand the options available to them and make an informed choice. It is up to the customer, however, to decide whether they want to use an existing bank account or open a new account, and if so, whether they want to open a bank account or post office card account. I have gone through the script, as has my hon. Friend. It is a simple and helpful service. The bottom line is that customers decide for themselves what kind of account they want to use to get their benefits and, if they want, to get them in cash at the post office.

Universal Parcel Postal Service

Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on the future of the universal parcel postal service.

Stephen Timms: The primary duty of the regulator set out in legislation is to ensure maintenance of the universal postal service at an affordable, uniform tariff. The Royal Mail operating division of the Royal Mail group now carries out the universal service obligation for parcels.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome his basic assurance. It will, however, have a hollow ring in my constituency, where people have found that, since the effective demise of Parcelforce last year, they are now excluded from the same standards of service as people in the rest of the country. Many mail order companies will deliver to island communities only at a significant surcharge, and many will not deliver to them at all. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs from the highlands and islands to discuss the matter and find some way of protecting those who rely most on services from mail order companies from the worst effects of the demise of Parcelforce?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am keen to get through the Order Paper, which means that we must have more precise questions and precise replies. It is only fair to those Members who have put down questions that I try to reach them.

Stephen Timms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the position. Parcelforce was losing #15 million a month, and is now a competitor with others in the express parcels business, but the universal service obligation is operated by Royal Mail. Sending a standard parcel to anywhere in the United Kingdom—three to five days' delivery, up to 1 kg—costs #3.15. That is the case whether one is sending a parcel to another part of London or to the Orkneys, but, of course, I will be happy to discuss the position with him.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ideas that we might like to progress relates to how we could create much better links with the sub-post offices? One of the problems these days is that parcels are delivered to people who are not at home; the parcels are then returned to the local sorting office, which may be some distance away from the home. Surely we could have a better co-ordinated approach whereby parcels are delivered to the local sub-post office. If we did that, both sides would gain.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion, which I am happy to take up with Post Office Ltd. There will be increasing possibilities for the Post Office to provide other services, including delivering the goods that people buy not to their homes but to a point from which they can collect them. He is absolutely right.

Construction Industry

Hugo Swire: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the construction industry.

Nigel Griffiths: The construction industry makes a significant contribution to our economy, comprising 8 per cent. of gross domestic product worth #83 billion, and it employs more than 2 million people. It secures some of the most prestigious contracts worldwide. We are working closely with the industry through the strategic forum for construction to improve industry productivity. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Mid-Devon, which is the only district council listed for beacon status in the rethinking construction category.

Hugo Swire: I most certainly wish to join the Minister in congratulating Mid-Devon council on anything that it does. However, it does not fall within my constituency.
	When it comes to formulating construction policy, will the Minister bear in mind the very real problems faced by many smaller companies in the construction industry as they seek to obtain employee and public liability insurance? When those companies can obtain insurance, they are often faced with premiums that have risen by anything between 100 and 400 per cent. To date, the Government have promised an inquiry, but the construction industry requires action. When can it expect it?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is slightly out of date. I have had discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI's council for small and medium-sized enterprises and others. We at the Department of Trade and Industry are working with our Treasury colleagues and are being led by the Department for Work and Pensions to help companies to resolve the problem. The Office of Fair Trading will also report on part of this matter in the spring.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend will know that a subset of the construction industry is the chemical engineering construction industry, which brings in several million pounds to the Exchequer from the work that it does overseas. Does he share the concern of the employers and the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association that there is a substantial skills shortage in the industry? The fact that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has been abolished means that there will be a further problem. What efforts will be made to put in place a system to encourage employers in the construction industry to train people for the future of the industry?

Nigel Griffiths: I want to make it clear—I know that my hon. Friend will accept this—that there is not a proposal to abolish that board. The Construction Industry Training Board is a separate body and, according to its latest figures, 40,000 people are now starting construction courses. That is an increase of 14 per cent. over the decade. The board received more than #30 million last year to fund modern apprenticeships. We accept that this is a serious issue and serious measures are being taken to address it.

Henry Bellingham: A crisis is obviously facing smaller firms. What does the Minister say to a small specialist construction firm on the south coast that requires cover of #5 million to secure contracts from its regular customers? This year, that business was able to secure cover of only #1 million at a cost of #8,000 whereas, last year, #12,000 bought cover of #10 million. Such firms do not want reports in the spring; they want action now. Can he guarantee that the reports will be acted upon?

Nigel Griffiths: The House will note that there is not one suggestion from the Conservative party on how to resolve the problem. That is why the industry, representatives of small business and others in business have welcomed the fact that the Government are addressing the issue, both through the Office of Fair Trading and in working with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association to find a solution to a problem that is caused not by the Government but by long-term structural changes in the insurance industry and the propensity of lawyers to litigate more readily than in the past. All those factors are causing problems and forcing up premiums. We recognise that this is a serious issue and are addressing it in the most serious manner.

Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British construction industry would benefit enormously from the Olympic games being staged in Britain? If he does, may I encourage him to lobby the Secretary of State vigorously to support a London Olympic bid?

Nigel Griffiths: Of course we welcome anything that helps the construction industry and is affordable. I know that discussions are taking place with the London mayor who has a scheme that he believes is low-cost—my Treasury colleagues will be interested to have the details. We know that the construction industry played a tremendous part in revitalising and showcasing Manchester. That is a great lesson, and I hope that the Olympic bid committee will learn from it.

Bob Spink: Since the Minister quite rightly accepts the importance of the construction industry to our economy, will he have discussions with his Treasury colleagues about removing some of the taxes that are holding some of the industry back, such as the construction industry tax, IR35, the aggregates levy and the landfill tax?

Nigel Griffiths: That is not what I heard from representatives of the construction industry in Nottingham yesterday when I presented an Investors in People award to TBL Construction. Obviously the construction industry has benefited from one of the best tax regimes in the world, with corporation tax at lower rates. It also benefits from the fastest growing economy in the world, which is perhaps why last year's output in construction marked the biggest annual increase in 12 years and why there are strong order figures this year too. We have addressed the industry's concerns—that is why it is thriving.

Strikes

Bill Wiggin: What steps her Department is taking to reduce the number of days lost to strikes.

Alan Johnson: Although days lost through industrial action have increased over the past year, the number of disputes remains near the lowest ever recorded. The Government fully support the expert work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in helping parties improve their employment relations and have increased its funding by more than 80 per cent. since coming to power.

Bill Wiggin: I cannot accept that the Minister's answer was particularly helpful when the number of days lost to strikes has increased from 235,000 in 1997 to more than 1 million in the past 12 months. How can the Government do more to cut the number of days lost and make Britain a better place in which to do business?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman was asking about levels of industrial action. The figures for days lost through industrial action are notoriously lumpy, for example, a one-day dispute by local government workers contributes 500,000 days lost to the figures. However, when we get the final month's figures, the actual number of disputes this year will be shown to be the lowest ever recorded.

Andrew Robathan: What about the Post Office?

Alan Johnson: As for the Post Office, the level is the lowest for 25 years. If we define good government by days lost through industrial action, the figure under this Government is 36 per cent. lower than under the Major Government. Using that definition, we are a very good Government.

Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that industry is not only plagued with strikes—in fact it has had its worst year since 1990, with more days lost than at any time over the past 12 years—but that manufacturing productivity is rising at only half the rate that it was when the Government were elected; business investment has just recorded its worst fall since 1996; the trade balance is worse than at any time since—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is too wide and relates to a question that was not called because the Member was absent.

GATS Negotiations

Ann McKechin: If she will make a statement on her Department's recent consultation on the World Trade Organisation general agreement on trade in services negotiations.

Patricia Hewitt: The consultation ended on 3 January with some 700 replies, including one from my hon. Friend, for which I thank her. I will publish a summary and a response from the Government as soon as possible.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. She will be aware that in the current GATS agreement the European Union placed a horizontal limitation on its service commitments to strengthen the protection against the use of public utilities and the manner in which they provide public services. Can she assure the House that she will resist calls in the negotiations to remove that limitation? How will she protect the way in which public bodies in the UK can provide and control public services in sectors such as health and education, even if they are delivered either wholly or partially by the private sector?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the existing horizontal limitation. A number of the consultation replies stressed the need for Europe to maintain that limitation. I strongly see the force of that argument, although we have not seen the Commission's draft proposals on the limitation. However, as I have stressed before and would stress again today, we have no intention of making any GATS commitments that would call into question our ability to maintain public services.

Adam Price: Why did the Government refuse to publish in full all the requests made by other WTO members to liberalise UK public services? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that those requests included the elimination of the subsidy to the BBC and the reprivatisation of Network Rail?

Patricia Hewitt: We did not publish the requests for the simple reason that our partners in the WTO, including a number of developing countries, wanted to keep the requests confidential. As a process of negotiation is under way, it makes sense to do that. What we have done is to publish a summary of all the requests made to us. We have also published an 88-page detailed consultation document on the website, and will shortly publish a summary of the responses and our response in turn to them. We have been more open and transparent in the process than any other WTO member. We continue to press our European Union colleagues for the maximum possible transparency in the EU, consistent with ensuring that we have effective negotiations.

British Aircraft Industry

John Wilkinson: What discussions her Department has had with the Ministry of Defence on the British aircraft industry.

Alan Johnson: The Department maintains a close and regular dialogue with the Ministry of Defence on industrial matters relating to major defence procurements and defence industrial policy. Inevitably, those discussions have, where appropriate, touched on the British aircraft industry.

John Wilkinson: Is not the Minister's Department concerned at the inordinate delays in introducing into service in the Royal Air Force the Eurofighter, the A400M and the new tanker aircraft? Or perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence just does not care because British Aerospace, the main participant, is not British in his eyes.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asks about three specific projects, which we are extremely concerned to bring to fruition. From his great experience of the issues, he will know that they are not entirely under the control of the British Government. Indeed, we are waiting for the German Government to come into line on the A400M. We very much care about the aerospace industry, in particular about BAE Systems, which is why I am due to receive the interim report of the innovation and growth team report on aerospace next week from Sir Richard Evans. I think that that will map the future for aerospace in this country.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just the big players in the aerospace industry, such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, that are dependent on Ministry of Defence work? Many highly skilled aerospace businesses in constituencies such as mine also depend on the contracts being given to the British aerospace industry.

Alan Johnson: Of course I accept that point. My hon. Friend knows full well that we have the biggest defence order book for the past 50 years, which provides a tremendous opportunity for British companies—including small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain generally, some of which are in my hon. Friend's constituency.

David Burnside: BAE Systems is the biggest producer of aircraft parts and aircraft in the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that, through its ownership, BAE Systems can no longer be classified as a British company? For example, in the decision between Thales and BAE Systems on the contract for the two aircraft carriers, would not awarding the contract to Thales, which has a major contributor in Harland and Wolff in Belfast, be a more patriotic choice for the British defence industry?

Alan Johnson: We have just agreed a defence industrial policy between the Ministry of Defence and Department for Trade and Industry that has been widely welcomed and which makes it absolutely clear that we are looking for value for money for the British taxpayer. BAE Systems is a British-controlled company in terms of the competition for two 55,000–tonnes carriers. Whichever contract is successful, it will mean jobs and prosperity for British workers—but that contract must be awarded on a proper competitive basis.

Postal Services

Andrew Lansley: When she last met the chairman and chief executive of Royal Mail to discuss postal services and prices; and if she will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: Ministers and officials have a regular dialogue with directors of Royal Mail on a range of issues relevant to the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has as a special shareholder of the company.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister say when he or the Secretary of State last met the chairman and chief executive of Royal Mail? Was the price control regime proposed by Postcomm discussed? In particular, if Postcomm withdraws from the extension of the scope of price control over Royal Mail—which seems to me and others who believe in competition to be somewhat excessive—will the Post Office not seek to delay matters by going to the Competition Commission? Incidentally, did the Minister express reservations about the Post Office's proposals in relation to format-based pricing?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced observer of arrangements for competition regulation and will know that there have been animated discussions between Royal Mail and Postcomm over Royal Mail's recent application for a price rise. Postcomm is an independent regulator and it is important that it and Royal Mail agree a way forward that is acceptable to all parties. I am optimistic that will be the outcome. In terms of the discussions, Postcomm is a fully independent regulator. In looking at the current price rise application, the Government have of course submitted information of which Postcomm will take account but the decision is entirely for Postcomm.

Bob Blizzard: Returning to the vital role that rural post offices play and bearing in mind that most village post offices are also shops, is not the best way to ensure their survival for the people who live in villages to use those post offices regularly? Is it not the case that if all the people who regularly drive to a supermarket and spend #40 or #50 to fill their car boots spent just 10 per cent. in their village shops/post offices, that would ensure the survival of the rural network?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Post Office has an important role to play in taking advantage of the big investment that has been made in new technology and offering new services that will attract people back to the post office network, to ensure that it has a thriving future.

Manufacturing Industry

Cheryl Gillan: What recent assessment she has made of the state of manufacturing industry.

Alan Johnson: We are continuously monitoring and tracking the progress of manufacturing in partnership with our key industry stakeholders.

Cheryl Gillan: I am sure that the Minister is constantly tracking the manufacturing industry. The Engineering Employers Federation estimates that 500,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the Government took power in 1997. Yesterday the Office for National Statistics announced that in the three months to November 2002, manufacturing jobs fell by 155,000 on the same period last year. Does the Minister think that the Government are living up to the Secretary of State's promise to think of manufacturing as an integral part of the future of our economy?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I do. Manufacturing is an integral part of our economy. It is crucial to the future of the country, as it represents 60 per cent. of our exports and a fifth of our gross domestic product. Manufacturing is indeed facing problems in this country, as it is in Japan and in the USA. There is a global downturn—the first synchronised global downturn in those three parts of the world since 1974. Manufacturers know that it is a tough world out there. This is not the ritual dance in which we sometimes engage, but perhaps I could have a quick little pirouette: 2.75 million jobs in manufacturing were lost under the previous Government. We are seeking to draw up the first manufacturing strategy in this country for 30 years, and to address the practical problems facing manufacturers. The Engineering Employers Federation, which is entirely engaged in that process, understands that full well.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

Domestic Violence

Andrew Turner: What evidence she has collated of changes in the incidence of domestic violence in the last three years.

Patricia Hewitt: According to the British crime survey, the number of domestic violence incidents per year has fallen by 19 per cent. over the past three years. Further research is being undertaken that will give us more detailed information about domestic violence, as well as sexual assault and stalking.

Andrew Turner: The Women's Aid website reports that 23 per cent. of separated women suffer post-separation violence and 76 per cent. suffer verbal abuse and threats. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that one reason—although in no way a justification—is the difficulty that some separated men feel they have in maintaining access to their children, even when access has been ordered by the courts? What steps is she taking to ensure that the paramount needs of the child and the safety of all, as determined by the courts, are met?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right about the shocking extent of verbal and physical abuse, not only in cases following a separation—one quarter of all violent crimes relate to domestic violence, and two women a week are murdered by their partners. That is utterly unacceptable. With regard to fathers' access to their children, my view is simple: children benefit from having, wherever it is possible, the love and support of their father as well as of their mother. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his Department are ensuring that in access cases, proper attention is paid to the needs of the child. That is the overriding consideration. I would warn the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he was not seeking to do this—against in any sense excusing verbal or physical abuse. In some recent murder and manslaughter trials where the woman has been killed by her husband or partner, there has been an attempt to defend that crime by blaming the woman. That is unacceptable as well.

Fiona Mactaggart: In the circumstance where one third of all homicides in the country occur following domestic violence, and where there is no other crime with a higher level of repeat victimisation, is there not a crisis that requires more urgent action than we have been able to deliver, not just to protect women, but very often to protect children? How can we make sure that women's lives are protected from violent men?

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already put in place new guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service, and is working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police and the prosecution service work far more effectively together to make sure that the warning signs of early evidence of violent incidents are properly taken into account, and that women are protected against the very real risk that domestic violence will end in the death of the woman. I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has recently taken the step of referring outrageously lenient sentences in such cases to the Court of Appeal for further review.

Sandra Gidley: In a written reply from the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, on 10 December, he stated:
	XDomestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 233W.]
	Given the acknowledged high number of such incidents and the fact that one in five incidents result in a woman having to visit a doctor, would it not be useful for all agencies concerned to collect those figures separately in future?

Patricia Hewitt: I think that it might well be, and I shall certainly draw that issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I said in my first reply, we are also doing further research on this, because domestic violence is notoriously under-reported. The British crime survey can help us to get a better fix on the actual scale of the problem.

Caroline Spelman: In 1975, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that there should be one refuge place per 10,000 people, for the protection of victims of domestic violence. Today, we have only one third of that number. Will the Minister tell the House whether the forthcoming Green Paper will contain revised proposals for meeting the shortfall in refuge provision?

Patricia Hewitt: I agree that, over several decades, not enough attention has been paid to this issue, nor has enough investment been put into refuges for women suffering domestic violence. I welcome the fact that we will be spending an additional #7 million on developing new refuges in partnership with local authorities around the country. I also welcome the fact that the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women launched a new national 24-hour helpline in December to ensure that women who are fleeing violent partners can get the advice and information that they need.

Lady Hermon: Given that responsibility for criminal justice was not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly—whether suspended or not—and that that responsibility remains here at Westminster, and that the incidence of domestic violence remains at a very high level in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what discussions she has had with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about measures to combat domestic violence there?

Patricia Hewitt: I have not had discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I know that the Northern Ireland Administration, as well as those in Scotland and Wales, are closely involved in the work that is being undertaken right across government on the issue of domestic violence. We have to engage the police, the prosecuting authorities, the local authorities, housing authorities and so on. All the different agencies are being involved in this, and that includes those in Northern Ireland.

Equal Pay

John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the incidence in the last three years of cases successfully brought against employers for paying women lower wages than those paid to men for doing similar work.

Patricia Hewitt: In the three financial years up to 2002 for which we have figures, 163 equal pay claims were successful at tribunal. Many more, of course, were settled and withdrawn before they came to a tribunal hearing.

John Bercow: It is disgraceful that such claims should need to be made at all. Does the Minister for Women agree that economic efficiency and social justice alike demand that there should always be equal pay for work of equal value? Given that there are continuing and unjustified disparities, does she agree that it is urgently necessary that the message should go out from representatives of all major political parties that skinflint employers who seek to break the law with impunity in 2003 will be subject to zero tolerance?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman reciting the central mantra of new Labour that economic efficiency and social justice go together. Of course he is right to say that unequal pay for work of equal value is absolutely unacceptable. That is why we have strengthened the law with the new equal pay questionnaire. We do not want cases going to tribunals if we can possibly avoid it; we would rather settle them inside the workplace. That is also why we have established equal pay audits in the public sector, all of which will be completed by April, and why we are putting in place proper plans to re-organise the pay structure and job classifications, as we have done at ACAS and as we are doing in the national health service, to ensure that there is indeed equal pay for work of equal value.

Domestic Violence

Margaret Moran: When her report on the cost of domestic violence will be published.

Patricia Hewitt: The full research report is scheduled for publication in the early summer—not the spring; the summer.

Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend and her colleagues for their wisdom in taking up the suggestion that we undertake an analysis of the cost of domestic violence. As I am sure she is aware, recent research in the United States showed that $1.6 billion is spent in the health service alone on picking up the cost of domestic violence. Given that a woman is assaulted 35 times, on average, before she flees to safety, I am sure that the cost to the NHS will be as much as that or more. Does she therefore agree that it is essential that, once the report is published, we seek to shift resources away from picking up the pieces and into prevention? Will she vigorously advance that argument to the Treasury and ensure that we have sufficient funds for preventive measures in domestic violence cases?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women recently announced the early results of the research, which we will be publishing in more detail later. The initial estimates are that the annual costs both to the public purse and in lost economic output amount to about #40 million in terms of the murder and manslaughter of women in their homes. If the appalling emotional and human impact costs are added, the figures increase to about #112 million a year.
	This is an appallingly extensive crime. Of course, I shall do as my hon. Friend asks in pressing the case for even greater investment than we are already making in prevention and support for those women.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: It would be a pleasure, Mr. Speaker:
	Monday 20 January—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled XGovernment's Failure to Tackle the Crisis in Winding up Arrangements for Occupational Pensions", followed by a debate on European directives on traditional herbal remedies and food supplements on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 21 January—Debate on House of Lords Reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The House will wish to know that there will be a further debate on Tuesday 4 February in which Members will have an opportunity to vote on the seven options recommended by the Joint Committee.
	Wednesday 22 January—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 23 January—Remaining stages of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
	Friday 24 January—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week after will include:
	Monday 27 January—Second Reading of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	Tuesday 28 January—Second Reading of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, followed by motions relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. [Hon. Members: XHear, hear."] I am grateful for that support from Opposition Members.
	Wednesday 29 January—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government has replied.
	Thursday 30 January—Opposition Day [4th allotted day]. There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Friday 31 January—The first debate on Private Members' Bills.
	The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 29 January, the third meeting of the Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe will take place to consider the fifth and sixth reports of the United Kingdom representatives to the Convention.

Eric Forth: As ever, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
	Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) identified a case of premature expostulation by the Secretary of State for Defence. In column 699 of Hansard, with regard to yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend pointed out that by 5.30 pm the previous day, the Press Association was reporting that there would be a statement on the following day in which it said that the Secretary of State would be
	X'minded to accept the American request to use Fylingdales.'"—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 699.]
	You, Mr. Speaker, have deprecated such practices time and time again. What is the Leader of the House going to do to get Ministers to follow your instructions to stop demeaning the House and giving their information to the Press Association or anyone else before that happens here in the House of Commons? Time and again, Ministers have been giving crucial information to the media 24 hours ahead and then coming to the Chamber and boasting that they are bringing the matter to the House. This is just the latest example and the right hon. Gentleman must tell us what he is going to do to deal with the practice effectively and not allow it to continue.
	The Leader of the House has often boasted that the series of ghastly measures—so-called modernisation—has resulted in no reduction in the time available for the House to hold the Government to account. Let us consider Thursdays. In the good old days, the House sat from 2.30 pm to 10 pm—seven and a half hours of quality parliamentary time to the hold the Government to account. Matters took a turn for the worse when the ghastly modernisers said, XWe'll sit from 11.30 am until 7 pm", and the Leader of the House said, XDon't worry, we'll still have the same amount of time to do our parliamentary business." That was just about bearable, but the modernisation process edged further forward, and the Leader of the House suggested that we should sit from 11.30 am till 6 pm on Thursdays. That is a reduction in parliamentary time by any reckoning.
	What business is sufficiently trivial to require less time on a Thursday? Today, the vital fisheries debate has been squeezed into a mere three hours. That is an insult to the subject. Next week, the crucial Regional Assemblies Bill will be considered on a Thursday. Given that business questions are held on Thursdays and that statements occasionally follow, it is obvious that modernisation has reduced the time that is available for the House properly to hold the Government to account. What does the Leader of the House have to say about that?
	Next Tuesday, we shall debate the vital matter of Lords reform. On 4 February, as the Leader of the House announced, we will have an opportunity to vote on seven different options for Lords reform. Where do we go from there? When we began the process, we believed that the Government had a policy on Lords reform. We believed that phase 1 was the virtual elimination of the hereditaries and that phase 2 would be the completion of the project.
	That appeared to be the case until the Lord Chancellor said on the XToday" programme on Radio 4 on 7 January:
	XAll bets are off in the sense that the White Paper . . . didn't command acceptance."
	At least we now know that the Government no longer believe that what was originally meant to happen will take place. The Lord Chancellor helpfully said that
	Xmany voices are speaking out against what they call the nonsense of a hybrid House"—
	I believed that that was the preferred option of the Leader of the House. The Lord Chancellor continued even more revealingly:
	XThe Government has arrived at no views as yet . . . some genius is going to have make sense of the votes."
	He went on, uncharacteristically modestly:
	XI am pleased to say that that genius is the Joint Committee."
	The Leader of the House should tell us now what will happen after next Tuesday's debate and the votes in February, especially in the likely event of the House and the other place reaching different views on reform of the House of Lords. What remit will the Government give the Joint Committee? What sort of timetable can we expect for the crucial completion of the reform of the upper House? The Joint Committee has identified at least eight pieces of further work that it must do, never mind the remit that the Government will give it after our votes. We need to know; otherwise, we shall conduct our debates on a crucial parliamentary and constitutional matter in a vacuum created by the Government.

Robin Cook: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back and wish him a happy new year.
	I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government stand firmly against premature expostulation. It was widely known that the Secretary of State for Defence was going to make a statement to the House. From the moment such information is known, all sorts of people begin to speculate about the content—[Interruption.] The phrase that the right hon. Gentleman quoted was not in the statement. It is not only the press who speculate. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence touted himself around television and radio stations, speculating about the statement.

Eric Forth: He is not the Government.

Robin Cook: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may not be the Government, but neither is the right hon. Gentleman. What is sauce for him is sauce for the shadow Defence Secretary. The Opposition cannot complain about media speculation when they want the broadcasting media to interview them about the possible contents of the Defence Secretary's announcement.
	On the question of the modernisation measures, we debated these matters very fully on 29 October. It was an excellent debate, which is fully recorded in Hansard. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to re-live it, I invite him to read that edition of Hansard, or to view the videotapes. All of these questions were put to the House on that occasion, and there was a very compelling majority for the conclusion that we should stop at 6 pm on Thursdays.
	Before the right hon. Gentleman waxes any more indignant about the outrageousness of stopping at 6 pm, I should point out that last Thursday, the House actually finished before 4 pm because there were no speakers left to continue the business before it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I refuse to feel particularly guilty. Perhaps some of the Opposition Members who are so keen that we continue until 6 pm on a Thursday will turn up to make a speech next time, which they did not last Thursday. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman was unable to be with us for last Thursday's business statement. We did deal with the Lord Chancellor then, thanks to the intervention of his deputy, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). It is impossible to speak at too great length about the Lord Chancellor, and I am happy to do it all over again.
	The fact is that five of the seven options that will be before the House when we vote on 4 February will provide for some form of mixed membership. The right hon. Gentleman complains that there is no Government view, but frankly, the strength of the debate for the House is that it will have a free vote and the decision. We set out that strategy clearly last summer, when I made it plain that we believe that reform of the second Chamber is a matter for Parliament and not just for the Government, and that it is therefore right that Parliament take a view. It would be wrong, having set out that strategy, for the Government now to try to lecture Parliament on what that view should be.
	As to what happens next, there is no secret about that. A statement was made last summer, and we have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. What happens next is that the votes in both places will go back to the Joint Committee. There is no need for a new remit for the Committee. The remit that we agreed with the Committee last summer—when the Committee was established—sets out clearly that it will first come to us with an interim report on the options, which it has done, and then translate the outcome of those votes into a detailed proposal. That remains the strategy and the timetable, and I hope that we can take it forward in time to legislate during the next Session.

Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House confirm that it is his expectation that the UN inspectors will report back to the Security Council on their initial findings in Iraq on Monday 27 January, and that the following day, President Bush will make his State of the Union address? Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the House of Commons must be given the opportunity not only to debate what may come out of those two events, but to have a definitive vote on the situation, in terms of the deployment of British troops in the Gulf? Does he accept that the answer given to Baroness Williams of Crosby in the other place on Tuesday—at column 126 of the House of Lords Hansard—by Baroness Symons, in which she said that she was very Xsympathetic" to such a request, requires confirmation that he, too, is sympathetic on the Government's behalf to the idea that such a debate and Division might take place?
	According to today's Financial Times, it seems that the Government have torn up their expectation of increasing rail ridership by 50 per cent. in a decade. Can the Leader of the House therefore tell us when we will have a debate on the Government's rail strategy, so that we can learn whether they have indeed changed it? Perhaps that would also give the Conservative Opposition the opportunity to apologise, at long last, for the botched rail privatisation that has given rise to this appalling situation on our railways. While having to spend seven hours getting here last week, instead of the usual three and a half, I found myself standing next to a former British Rail manager, who confirmed in absolute terms that it was the previous Conservative Government's failure to invest in the infrastructure, combined with their privatising—[Hon. Members: XOh."] Conservative Members seem unable to listen even to those who travelled on British Rail, let alone to those who ran it.
	Finally, may I draw the Leader of the House's attention to motion 4 on today's Order Paper, which I think I am right in saying refers to dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls. The document mentioned in the motion was before a European Standing Committee just two days ago, but we do not have the Hansard report. We have no idea what is at stake. The motion may be very worthy, but how can we bring a motion to the Floor of the House without having a clue as to what it is all about? Moreover, on looking at the online Hansard for that Committee, I found that it was three years out of date.

Robin Cook: I am afraid I cannot shed further light on the directive without notice. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to phenyls, but in any event I will ensure that he is positively deluged with correspondence explaining the directive.
	Let me repeat what has been said on a number of occasions about the 27 January report. It will of course be the first substantive report from the inspectors to the Security Council, but it will not necessarily be the last. It will probably be a staging post for future reports, and I will not be at all surprised if Hans Blix's main conclusion on 27 January is that he requires further time in which to explore the issue.
	The Foreign Secretary has said from this Dispatch Box that the Government have no problem with the idea of a substantive motion on the question of commitment of British troops should we end up there, which is not inevitable; but it must come at the appropriate time, and I would be rather surprised if 27 January provided such an occasion. The Foreign Secretary will go to the United Nations next Monday, and will take part in a ministerial exchange in the Security Council. I am sure that he will want to ensure, as he has repeatedly, that the House is kept fully briefed on the progress of those discussions.
	I also noticed that the official Opposition's response to the business statement did not raise the question of rail. I deduce from that that once again it was impossible to find a Conservative Member who is willing to defend the way in which the Conservatives went about the privatisation of the rail industry. I am, however, happy to disabuse the House and the hon. Gentleman in regard to an error in what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government have not abandoned their commitment to a 50 per cent. increase in rail use. We remain committed to that target throughout the 10-year programme of our transport plan, and indeed we are well on target in that we have increased rail use by 25 per cent. since 1997.

David Hamilton: May I return the Leader of the House to next Tuesday's agenda and House of Lords reform? I read the relevant paper with great interest, and noted the seven proposals for a fully appointed House, a fully elected House, and so forth. The one proposal that is not there, of course, is the proposal for abolition. Will the Leader of the House have another look at the proposals? Has he seen early-day motion 529?
	[That this House expresses its concern that the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform did not include an option for abolition in its first report; further notes that much of the impetus for House of Lords reform stems from concerns about the effectiveness of the House of Commons; and would support proposals for a unicameral solution coupled with reform of the House of Commons legislative procedures.]
	In a single day, that motion gathered 63 signatures in favour of abolition. Could such a motion come before the House, so that we could vote on it?

Robin Cook: I read the early-day motion with interest, and noted that it had attracted signatures from a significant number of Members. We have sought to implement to the letter the recommendations of the Joint Committee. We were keen to establish the Committee, and said that it should present the proposals on which the House should vote; so we will not depart from its recommendations now. It has not recommended abolition as an option, although I note that, of necessity, half its members are from the other place.
	While my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to support his proposition as an individual, as are a number of our colleagues, it is not the policy on which we fought the last election. We have a mandate from our manifesto at that election not for the abolition but for the reform of the second place. I very much hope that after 4 February we shall be able to stop arguing about what is the option for reform, and at long last get on to the reform.

Teddy Taylor: According to my calculations, the Bank of England and therefore the people of Britain have lost more than #700 million as a result of the policy of instructing them to sell their gold and buy three specific currencies. Do the Government not believe that there is a case for an early debate in which they can give their calculation of what money has been lost, and we can have a full review of what has been a disastrous and costly policy that should never have been embarked on?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman has produced a question that is an oldie and, I suppose, a goldie. As we said at the time, Governments around the globe are diversifying the way in which they hold reserves. When we made the decision, Britain held an unusually high proportion of reserves in gold. It was therefore an entirely rational and proper decision, and I fully defend it. I suspect that, had a Conservative Government been in power at the time, they would have made precisely the same decision.

Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an urgent debate on the textile industry? He may be aware that there were 19,000 textile jobs in Leicester in 1984. That total fell to 9,000 in 1997, and is now down to 3,000. If the trend continues, there will be no more manufacturing in the textile industry in Leicester. In 1950, it was said that one out of every five pairs of socks worn in Europe was manufactured in Leicester. Can we have a debate on this urgent matter?

Robin Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the impact on his constituency of the decline in jobs that he has described. I am sure that he will readily acknowledge that we should not infer from the reduction in employment over the long period to which he referred that there has necessarily been a parallel reduction in output, as a relevant factor has been the substantial increase in productivity in that sector over the same period. I am pleased to tell the House that the recent employment figures demonstrate that, in the past year alone, there has been an increase in the number of people in work under this Government of 250,000, and that there was a further fall in unemployment of 5,000 in the last month. However, I fully understand that those figures do not remove the anxiety about the decline of traditional industries, especially in local communities such as that represented by my hon. Friend. I cannot offer him any immediate hope of a reversal of that trend in the textile industry, but I can assure him that the sound economy that the Government have created provides other opportunities for people in my hon. Friend's constituency, and elsewhere.

George Young: The Leader of the House has confirmed Tuesday's debate on Lords reform, when a number of hon. Members hope to make the case for a predominantly elected second Chamber. There is known to be a wide range of views in the Cabinet, and Ministers are to be allowed a free vote and apparently to express their views in public. Given that collective ministerial responsibility no longer applies, is there any reason why Ministers should not speak in the House from the Back Benches?

Robin Cook: We are obviously going to have a very interesting debate on Tuesday. I do not hold out much hope that it will be made even more interesting in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. However, it is important that we approach the matter in a mature way. We have committed ourselves to a free vote. It would be right and proper for the Opposition to complain if there was any suggestion that the Government were not allowing a free vote. Consistent with our commitment to a free vote, it would be wrong for the Government to advance a collective view.

Alice Mahon: Has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 410, on avoidable accidents caused by sleep deprivation?
	[That this House recognises that a significant proportion of all road accidents resulting in death or serious injury is caused by sleepiness; notes the human misery caused by fatal road accidents, which cost around one million pounds each; further notes that at least 1 per cent, of the United Kingdom's adult population has a medical cause for sleepiness; acknowledges the Royal College of Physicians' observation that untreated sleep apnoea sufferers may have driving impairments comparable with other drivers well over the legal alcohol limit; acknowledges that sleep apnoea is readily treatable with a machine costing #300 which lasts for ten years; notes the research undertaken by the Sleep Centre at Edinburgh university; that shows the cost of treating 500 sleep apnoea patients with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure treatment for five years would be a total of #400,000 in comparison to the estimated cost of accidents caused by untreated patients with sleep apnoea over the same five year period being #5,300,000; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to give serious consideration to increasing the provision of treatment for sleep disorders.]
	That is a very serious subject. From the answers that I have received from the Department of Health, it is clear that many primary care trusts and hospital trusts do not take the matter seriously. They do not offer a cost-effective treatment that could save many lives on our roads, as the majority of accidents are caused by people who suffer from sleep apnoea. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on what is a very serious matter?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter about which she has expressed concern on the Order Paper. She makes some important statistical points about the importance of the disorder. I am sure that Ministers at the Department of Health will want to make sure that the NHS responds to the problem properly. I shall ensure that they write to her setting out the strategy for dealing with this disorder.

Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee stage of the European Parliament (Representation) Bill was successfully completed today, and that that measure gives the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in European elections. Do the Government intend to introduce a similar Bill that will give the people of Gibraltar and all British overseas territories the right to democratic representation in the British Parliament, which has responsibility for them also?

Robin Cook: No is the short answer to that. The Government deserve credit for introducing, as no previous Government have done, a measure that will make sure that the people will be represented in the European Parliament. However, it is in the nature of the overseas territories that they have their independent form of government. As someone who was Foreign Secretary for a time, I know full well how jealously those territories guard their right to govern themselves and to ensure that their administrations are accountable to their indigenous populations. It would be wholly inconsistent with that to make them part of this Parliament, which would necessarily mean that they were subject to rule from Westminster.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House inquire as to when records relating to links between King Edward VIII and the Nazis will be released? I am told by the Lord Chancellor's Department that an investigation into this matter has been completed, but there seems to be great reluctance to release the findings.

Robin Cook: I am advised that the papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII will be released to the Public Record Office on 30 January. That will enable those who wish to examine the matter to see the discussion that took place at the time and the anxieties that may then have existed. It is right that that should be put in the public domain. Hon. Members and other members of the public can then come to their own conclusions.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is supposed to meet at least four times a year, and that there is a possibility that it will meet six times. Next week, three months will have elapsed since we last met. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Grand Committee will meet within the month and that, in keeping with commitments that have already been made, it will do so in Northern Ireland? That would allow some Northern Ireland Members who find it difficult to attend meetings at Westminster to attend the sitting. If there is a question about where to meet, I understand that the old Senate Chamber is available.

Robin Cook: I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the precise powers and role of the Grand Committee in circumstances when we do not have the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are fully seized of the additional importance of the Grand Committee in those circumstances. The hon. Gentleman can take it that there will be a meeting of the Grand Committee in the foreseeable future. Where it should meet is normally a matter for consultation between all parties, and it has not always been possible in the past to get agreement on what is the most convenient location for everybody. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be willing to undertake those consultations.

Diane Abbott: I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House early-day motion 436, on missile defence.
	[That this House notes the request by the United States Government to upgrade facilities at RAF Fylingdales as part of their National Missile Defence programme; recognises that there are huge moral, economic, technological and legal issues raised by NMD; welcomes the Government's commitment to a wide ranging public debate on these issues; and believes that the United States request should not even be considered until the British public has been able to have this debate and decide whether the XSon of Star Wars" proposals offer any real security for Britain or the international community.]
	Will my right hon. Friend make time for a full debate, in Government time, on national missile defence? Although the subject can be raised in next week's defence debate, the House needs to examine many issues to do with star wars. They include whether the technology works, what risk local populations face, and the destabilising effect of what many regimes in the world, including China, will regard as missile proliferation. Also, the House needs to discuss whether the Government have been entirely transparent in saying that the decision that they are about to take to update Fylingdales does not mean that Britain is signing up for the star wars project.

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, when he answered questions both here and in the Select Committee yesterday, made it clear that the decision that he was minded to take had to do with the current application, and that any future decision would be a matter for a future debate. On the question of discussing the matter in the House, I fully understand the interest that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have in it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and made a very full statement and took questions for a full hour yesterday. He then went to the Select Committee and answered questions for a further hour. There will be a debate on defence in the world next week. It is one of a number of debates on defence of a general character that are held in the course of the year. It would be entirely relevant for any hon. Member who wishes to ventilate some of these issues to do so in that debate.

Keith Simpson: Is the Secretary of State for Defence prepared to come to the House this afternoon to put right the statement that he made about the future of BAE Systems? Many hon. Members on all sides who have a workforce involved with BAE were shocked by his comments. This is the second time the Secretary of State has effectively damaged the company. In the next few weeks a decision will be made about the purchase of two carriers for the Royal Navy. Quite rightly, there should be an open competition, but the Secretary of State by his comments has seriously damaged the financial future of a major British company. Would the right hon. Gentleman please make a statement on this?

Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has in no way damaged the prospects of any company obtaining any contract from the Ministry of Defence. It would be rather odd if anything that he said damaged his ability to award a contract to that company.
	Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman of the background. Last year BAE Systems itself asked the Government to remove the requirement that 50 per cent. of the shareholders had to be British. The Government responded to that initiative and request from the company by removing the requirement. As I understand it, at present 54 per cent. of the shareholders are of foreign rather than British origin. But that is not a consideration in the award of any contract by the Ministry of Defence. Certainly the Ministry quite rightly and properly attaches importance to the economic benefit that would come from a contract being awarded. That economic benefit remains constant so long as BAE's installations are in Britain, and is not dependent on where its foreign shareholders may be based.

Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the article in The Times on 13 January regarding the new post office card accounts initially being available to only 10,000 claimants? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Minister to make a statement as to whether the article is correct? Does he agree that if it is correct the existing methods of payments to benefit claimants at post offices should continue until the cards are available to those who want them?

Robin Cook: I believe that I am on sound ground in telling my hon. Friend that the answer to his last question is XYes", that those who wish to retain the present post office card may do so, and that we shall try to make sure that the system can ensure that they are paid in the normal way. Only a small number in the initial period will be transferred to any other form of payment. We are very sensitive to the need to make sure that we fully provide choice to the customers of the post office.

Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the following matter? Five and a half years after the election of a Labour Government it was announced last year that trains would run from Matlock to Birmingham straight through. It has been announced today that, within two months of that service being operated, instead of 10 trains running there will now be two. Does the Leader of the House think that that will encourage people to use public transport?

Robin Cook: In the way in which he puts his question the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the fact that last October there was a substantial increase in cross-country services. Indeed, the Virgin cross-country services doubled in October. It has not proved possible for Virgin to maintain that service without substantial congestion in the network. Therefore, most of the reductions announced today relate to the Virgin cross-country services. However, I understand that there will still be substantially more cross-country services after the reductions than there were before last October. The hon. Gentleman was on the Conservative Benches when the present structure of privatisation was created. I, and I think his constituents, would take his complaint rather more seriously if he could point to a single instance in the course of those debates where he expressed that reservation.

Colin Challen: Now that the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation on the World Trade Organisation's current round of General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations has just been completed, may the House have a full debate on the liberalisation of trade in services? Many people, including the Local Government Association and even this morning hon. Members, have expressed great concern about the future of public services under those arrangements. May we have a full debate so that it will be possible to answer the point that some of the negotiations were carried out in secret to avoid public scrutiny?

Robin Cook: To be fair to the present Government, I would tell my hon. Friend that we have sought wherever possible to make more open and more transparent the discussions within the World Trade Organisation and will continue to look for new ways in which accountability can be secured in its deliberations.
	On the generality of my hon. Friend's point, he raises a profoundly important and serious issue. I sometimes feel that in our political exchanges we do not necessarily reflect the most profound and most strategic changes, but those that are currently the issues of greatest current publicity. I shall consider what appropriate mechanism there may be for this matter to be ventilated. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully determined to make sure that we achieve a liberalisation of trade and that we secure an opportunity to export for the growing service sector within the United Kingdom. At the same time, we are sensitive to the need to make sure that it happens in a way that promotes rather than hinders the development of those countries that are yet to develop.

Michael Jack: Until now members of the public have accepted that there is a genuine need to provide asylum to those who fear for their lives. In the light of the tragic death of the police officer in Manchester and the apprehension of persons from north Africa, some will look at asylum now as the Trojan horse for terrorism. Will the Home Secretary make a statement on the subject of our current asylum procedures, so that the House may have an opportunity to probe the thoroughness, preparedness and resources at our disposal to deal with the mounting terrorism threat?

Robin Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his sound bite, but I cannot congratulate him on his responsibility. It is a cheap and irresponsible form of politics to try to label all asylum-seekers as if they may be terrorists. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Leader of the House answer in the way that he pleases.

Robin Cook: I would have more respect for the perspective being argued from the Opposition Benches if it were not the same party that only last year tried to prevent us from having a new rule which would enable us to deport asylum-seekers guilty of a serious offence. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the record of his own party before trying to turn this to political advantage.

Malcolm Savidge: I apologise for the brief blast of Beethoven from my phone.
	May I reiterate the request to my right hon. Friend for a specific debate on the general principle of British involvement in missile defence, which was requested yesterday by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches? We know from my own early day motion that there is concern amongst over half the Parliamentary Labour party, the vast majority of Labour Back Benchers. The public believes that this is an important decision, which in a democracy should be properly discussed in this Chamber. It is wholly inadequate to reduce it to passing references during a debate on defence in the world, in which inevitably issues such as Iraq will correctly predominate.

Robin Cook: I understand the strength of feeling on this issue and also fully understand the complexity of the arguments on both sides of the question. But, on the narrow question of process, five days are set aside each Session for defence, and we meet those mandatory requirements in each Session. Moreover, there are many additional days on issues of topicality, such as Iraq, which I am sure we will debate again. What my hon. Friend said about the Opposition having demanded such an opportunity was an interesting observation. I find it strange that instead they have chosen to debate herbal medicines next week.

John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House may or may not be aware that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution on a paper of mine calling for a convention against clandestine migration. In view of the serious security implications of this matter, and notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's intemperate response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), whose comments were entirely apposite, could not the Home Secretary tell the House that the Government will be following the recommendations of the convention, because surely the general public deserve it?

Robin Cook: The United Kingdom plays a distinguished part in both the Assembly of the Council of Europe and its meetings at ministerial level, and will continue to do so. Of course, we shall take very seriously any recommendation by the Assembly for such a convention. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House yesterday, quite rightly and quite properly, in the immediate aftermath of the appalling murder, and of course he will continue to keep the House fully briefed. But, in fairness to those many people who seek legitimate asylum from illegitimate persecution in the countries from which they flee, we should not now start to tar them all with the terrorist brush.

Llew Smith: Last week, I requested a debate on the sell-off of part of the defence evaluation quango, QinetiQ, to the Carlyle Group. I argued that such a debate was necessary because of the secretive way that the procedures have been adopted by placing minutes in the Library before the recess in July and December last year. The Leader of the House refused to hold the debate as he was of the opinion that the procedure had been open and had been done through a statutory instrument. However, the statutory instrument referred to March 2001, whereas I was referring to minutes being placed in the Library in July and December 2002. I am pleased that the Speaker has informed me that Parliament was notified by item 12 in appendix I of the Votes and Proceedings of 17 December last year. That is hardly essential breakfast reading. Because of money involved—underwriting about #100 million—will the Leader of the House rethink and perhaps agree to hold a debate on such an important matter?

Robin Cook: It is perfectly correct to say that I did not apprehend at the time that a minute had been deposited in the Library and, as my hon. Friend will see if he consults the report of what he said at the time, that may partly reflect the fact that he did not make it clear in his question either.
	On the process on that occasion, the Ministry of Defence has followed the standard procedure where a Government liability is being created in excess of #100,000, which is to place the minutes in the Library. The fact that that was done on the day before the recess has, of course, no bearing on the fact that the period for objection is 14 sitting days, not 14 calendar days, and therefore it is of no procedural significance whether it was done before or after the recess. I can only suggest that, if my hon. Friend wishes to force such a debate, he and his friends need to ensure that there are sufficient objections, and we will consider the issue in the light of that at the end of the 14 sitting days.

Pete Wishart: Does the Leader of the House not find it incredible that the only group of parliamentarians in the United Kingdom who will have the opportunity to consider and vote on a substantive motion in advance of military action in Iraq are Members of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, on the back of a Scottish National party motion? Will he endorse the view of his colleague, the First Minister of Scotland, who says that Labour Members who vote against Government policy do not deserve to be in the Labour party?

Robin Cook: I am happy to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on all the points that he makes. First, it is not the case that only Members of the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on a substantive motion. For the record, I should say that we had a substantive motion in the House before Christmas. Indeed, there was a vote on that substantive motion and, by a very large majority, the House endorsed the Government's strategy in ensuring that we fully support the United Nations process and UN resolution 1441.
	The Foreign Secretary has already made it clear, as I mentioned earlier, that the Government have no difficulty at all with the idea that there should be a further substantive motion and, if hon. Members wish to divide the House, a vote on the commitment of troops at the appropriate time. Of course the Scottish Parliament will have views, and those who have a view to express and have formed intelligent opinions about the policy on Iraq will have an opportunity to debate them. However, I am pleased to reassure the House that Britain's foreign policy will be settled in this Chamber, not in the Scottish Parliament.

John Smith: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the dispute that has apparently arisen between the World Health Organisation researchers at Leiden university in Amsterdam and the International Air Transport Association about whether airline companies are helping or hindering vital research into deep-vein thrombosis and air travel? Given that the British taxpayer is funding that research, will he bring the issue to the attention of his right hon. Friends, with a view to reporting back to the House?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend takes a deep interest in this matter and has alerted the House to it on several occasions during business questions. As he will know, the Government share his apprehension and concerns, which is why we have been one of the countries willing to fund the international research, and we will continue to give that support. We should not prematurely judge the outcome of that research until it is available to us. I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing said in the meantime will deflect the Government from our commitment to ensuring that we have full, thorough international research, partly funded by the United Kingdom.

Andrew Mitchell: Although many hon. Members—at least those on the Conservative Benches—strongly support the Prime Minister's policies on the promotion of international law and order, are they not a terrible contrast with the Government's complete and lamentable failure on domestic law and order policies? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the Government's crime and law and order policies to be held as soon as possible? Will he ensure that, during that debate, we hear from the as yet unnamed but widely quoted senior Labour Minister who described the Lord Chancellor—I think that I quote him exactly—as a muddled and confused old codger?

Greg Knight: Own up.

Robin Cook: I am happy to respond by saying, no, it was not me. I am very pleased to tell the House that, among my many responsibilities, I do not number the obligation of disclosing the sources of the press, which is probably as well for the press because, in my experience, quite a lot of what we read in the press is made up in the bar.
	On the Government's record on crime, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, according to the British crime survey, crime has declined by 27 per cent. in the past five years. That is a stark contrast to the way in which crime doubled during the years when the Conservatives were in office.

Tony McWalter: Following the question about asylum asked by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), would my right hon. Friend accept that there are many innocent victims of the culture that he was right to decry? Would not a debate on asylum give us an opportunity not only to consider the obligation that the Government and the country have to maintain civil liberties, but address the needs of people, such as my constituent, Erald Angoni, who is a 10-year-old Kosovan who cannot visit his dying grandfather because of the current clampdowns? Would my right hon. Friend accept that a debate on that matter could have benefits for those who are concerned about that part of the argument?

Robin Cook: Of course I cannot comment on the individual constituency case to which my hon. Friend refers, but there are other ways in which he can seek to ventilate and remedy that problem. On the wider question, there is probably no other single issue that the House has discussed more in the past Session than asylum, and I would be very surprised if we did not continue that debate during this Session. My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right: it is important that we get the balance right between carrying out our international obligations to provide refuge for those who are fleeing persecution and safeguarding the civil liberties of the people of Britain, who also, of course, have perfectly reasonable grounds to expect that the Government will ensure that people do not abuse the asylum system by entering it for reasons other than to seek protection.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the Leader of the House and, indeed, the whole House in pointing out that there is a distinction between the obligations on Ministers and what they do and say with regard to the House and the different role played by Opposition Members? The Leader of the House seemed to suggest, quite extraordinarily, that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen had the same responsibilities as Ministers. Mr. Speaker, you must surely help him to make the distinction, which he has failed to make, that there is a real responsibility on Ministers to pay proper regard to their attitude to the House, whereas, frankly, the rest of us, as mere Members of Parliament, can pretty much say whatever we like when we like.

Mr. Speaker: I have said in the past that I have no responsibility for the content or quality of the replies of any Minister, including the Leader of the House. However, certainly in any of my statements about Ministers' responsibilities, I have said that the responsibilities are far different for those who hold Opposition posts. I shall say no more on that matter.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be willing to look into the issue of the delays that now occur in the translation of ministerial written replies into the Official Report? At about 6 o'clock yesterday evening, I received a long-awaited written answer from the Department of Health—it goes back to November—informing me that the Government spend #53 million a year on promoting the consumption of fruit and vegetables. I had hoped that that answer would appear in today's Official Report, but it does not, and it is not on the internet either. That seems to be part of a new pattern that communications between Departments and Hansard—it may be for another reason—result in Hansard not producing written answers in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with the Editor of Hansard, if that is where the complaint lies, before raising it with the Speaker.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, my complaint is not with the Editor of Hansard. My suspicion is that Departments are not communicating the information to Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should try the Minister first. When I was a shop steward, I used to say that people should take matters up with the manager before they went to the shop steward.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, we regard you as our shop steward in this matter because it relates to not one but several Ministers and certainly not to the Editor of Hansard. In recent weeks, since the introduction of the new system, there have been several cases of a written statement not being made available in the Library or in the Vote Office. Indeed, I have drawn that to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Could you, in the nicest possible way—in your usual extraordinarily tactful way—as our shop steward, make representations to the Government that if they are not ready to make a written statement available to Members of the House they only have to wait another day and then do so?

Mr. Speaker: The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has written to me on that matter. Perhaps I may be given the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
	Orders of the Day

Church of England (Pensions) Measure

Stuart Bell: I beg to move,
	That the Church of England (Pensions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
	This is the first Church of England Measure to be debated in this Parliament, so I welcome hon. Members on this august occasion.
	The Measure makes provision in two main areas. First, it amends the powers of the Church of England pensions board in relation to certain funds that it holds in statutory trusts for the benefit of its pensioners and their dependants. It does so by transferring them to the general purposes fund established by the board in 1975. That fund is then given charitable purposes that embrace all the former purposes of the funds added to it. The result will be to enhance flexibility to make discretionary charitable provision for its pensioners and others and to reduce administrative costs.
	The Measure widens the board's powers in relation to the provision of retirement housing for those who have served in the stipendiary ministry. Previously, where a couple housed by the board divorced after retirement, the board could continue to house only its pensioner and not the former spouse. The Measure gives the board power to house a former spouse as well as the pensioner and thus enables it to treat both even-handedly.
	The Measure clarifies the position as regards the liability for payment of the cost of accruing pension rights where compensation is paid under the Pastoral Measure 1983 and the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measures. The changes relating to the Church of England pensions board are dealt with in clauses 1 to 4 of the Measure.
	Secondly, in clause 5, the Measure extends for a further seven years, from 1 January 2005, the power granted to the Church Commissioners by the Pensions Measure 1997 to resort to capital to pay their pre- 1998 clergy pension liabilities. The 1997 Measure significantly altered the arrangements for the funding of clergy pensions. In particular, it limited the commissioners' pension liabilities to those arising from service before the end of 1997.

David Drew: I hope that the Measures will not be controversial but, given the previous problems experienced by the Church Commissioners, can my hon. Friend tell us what the fall-out might be if there were no improvement in the Church's overall capital position? We are talking about some of the poorer pensioners; it is a myth to pretend that former vicars do not face an extremely difficult situation.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The commissioners' investment performance over the past three years has been adversely affected by the poor return from global stock markets, but their property holdings have mitigated the impact, although full figures are not yet available. When they are, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives the information.

David Taylor: I understand that we are talking about assets of about #4.5 billion and that actuarial assumptions envisage that about #2 billion of that will be required over the next 60 years. Can we assume that the actuaries have taken a bleak view of the present stock market position and that things could actually be much better as time goes on?

Stuart Bell: The actuaries estimated that, on the basis of present withdrawals from the funds of the commissioners—the capital to which the Measure refers—which amount to about #30 million a year and possibly more than that, it would take 60 years for half our capital to be divested, or used up. Of course, 60 years is a long time for all of us—we may all be dead by then. However, the pensions liability, according to the actuaries, is long standing and we hope that, with flexibility in relation both to our property investments and our stock market investments, the situation to which my hon. Friend alludes will not arise, but I am grateful to him for putting the question.

Frank Field: May I ask my hon. Friend about the other side of that actuarial calculation? The first actuarial calculation to be undertaken for the commissioners relates to how much of the total fund will be required, but the second is for the new scheme that is to be established. Is he satisfied that the actuarial calculations for the new scheme are as soundly based as they should be, given that the situation has changed so quickly over the past couple of years? Might the commissioners want to bring forward the actuarial review of the scheme?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. As he is aware, the pension schemes to which we are referring are final salary schemes. The essence of the Pensions Measure 1997 was to divest responsibility of the commissioners for future schemes from that date and to pass it to the dioceses. My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point and I shall be glad to take up the question of whether there should be an actuarial review of the schemes and draw it to the attention of the commissioners.
	I shall now return to my speech, with apologies to Hansard if it is not the point where I left off.
	The Pensions Measure 1997 limited the commissioners' pension liabilities to those arising from service before the end of 1997 and created a new and separate funded scheme into which dioceses—through funds raised from parishes—could pay clergy pension contributions in respect of service from the beginning of 1998. In support of those arrangements, it gave the commissioners power, but only until the end of 2004, both to give financial assistance to diocesan boards of finance and others in taking on the cost of paying those pension contributions and to spend capital in meeting their own pre-1998 pension liabilities.

John Bercow: I recognise that this a relatively narrowly drawn Church of England pensions Measure, rather than a Bill that seeks to address contracts of employment. Given the widespread concern on both sides of the House about the relatively minimal and unsatisfactory employment rights of members of the clergy, does the hon. Gentleman feel able to hold out any prospect that the Measure could be amended so that those whose contracts of employment are terminated might be given additional pension provision?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Measure is narrowly drawn, and not capable of being amended. However, his point about employment rights has been well taken by the Church, which is providing a full document as part of the consultation procedures demanded by the Department of Trade and Industry that will close in July. I will ensure that the question of pension rights in relation to employment rights is linked in our consultation document.
	The Measure will alter the last of the powers to which I referred by extending for a further period of seven years, from 1 January 2005, the commissioners' powers to spend capital to pay their pre-1998 clergy pension liabilities. The reason for seeking that extension is that, because of the need to fund those liabilities, the commissioners' expenditure is likely to exceed their income by at least #30 million per annum, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made. Without the continuation of the power to resort to capital to meet those liabilities, the commissioners would need to make substantial cuts in their discretionary expenditure or to realign their investment portfolio to generate higher income. Either course of action would be damaging to the Church's long-term interests. It is also worth recalling that while the commissioners' capital is being reduced, the new funded scheme is being increased in size at roughly the same rate because so far it has few pension payments to make, so that, overall, there is no loss of capital at the national level of the Church.
	In summary, the Measure both rationalises the administration of discretionary funds in the hands of the pensions board—

David Taylor: My hon. Friend has just announced that the Measure includes provisions that will end the seven-year transitional arrangements, which allowed contributions to diocesan boards of finance and others to help them meet their post-1998 liabilities. The cessation of that will essentially pose extra burdens for dioceses, deaneries and parishes such as mine, which are already groaning under financial pressures. Is he convinced that this is the right time to end that seven-year arrangement? Should it not be extended?

Stuart Bell: The seven-year period is being extended by the Measure. It was introduced in this Parliament in 1997, and Parliament thought that it ought to be brought back after five years. It is now being brought back, and it is being extended. The reason for that is to give the commissioners' flexibility in handling their financial affairs for the benefit of those clergy. My hon. Friend's point about the burdens on dioceses was recognised in 1997, and that continues, but I am happy to say that the powers of giving in relation to Church communities have been enhanced. As far as I am aware, those commitments are being met, although we recognise that they are onerous.
	Extending the commissioners' power to spend capital allows them to manage the resources under their control in the most strategic and effective manner. The Measure is therefore not only important to the pensions board and the Church Commissioners but to those many clergy and their spouses who have faithfully and loyally served the Church over many years. For those reasons, I commend the Measure to the House.

Robert Key: I warmly welcome the Measure, which I hope will pass speedily through the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he presented the issue, which is of great significance to a substantial number of people in my constituency in the diocese of Salisbury. There has been unhappiness in several areas for some time. It is important that the Church realign its resources in this way, streamline its administration, and change the basis of the funding of pensions for the clergy and their spouses.
	I broadly welcome clause 3 on housing and residences, as there had been an anomaly. The Church is not immune from the ways of the world today, and, sadly, when spouses divorced after retirement, the Church Commissioners had no power to assist in housing the divorced spouse. That anomaly is put right by this Measure, which is extremely important. I dare say that there will be further amendments in that line.
	Finally, the Measure illustrates the importance of the relationship between the Church of England and the state, which I welcome. It illustrates not only that the Church of England is undoubtedly in a privileged position, but that that is not just symbolic but, at a practical level, alive and well and working in the interests of the clergy of the Church of England. Having read the whole of the minutes of the deliberations of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was quite a task and required several gin and tonics in the middle, I can say that it was worth the read. It illustrated how seriously Members of both Houses take their responsibilities on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and how they bring to bear their wisdom and experience, which has been to advantage in this case. The substantial change made by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was accepted without difficulty by the Synod, illustrates clearly once again how the relationship between the Church of England and the state is flourishing, and I hope that that will continue for many years.

Steve Webb: I have a feeling that my declaration of interest may last longer than my remarks. As my wife is an Anglican priest of three years' service before the changes were introduced, we have several pennies at stake on this Measure. We hope, however, that that will not bias my comments unduly.
	My colleagues and I also welcome the Measure. We note that when the General Synod considered its original version, it was approved by 366 votes to one—

Robert Key: Name him.

Steve Webb: A bishop; I do not know who.
	Parliament is in the absurd position of considering the matter for the third time. Given that Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee have already considered it, we should be cautious about seeking to amend anything that has the overwhelming support of the Church. Having said that, Parliament has a historic role in overseeing these processes.
	Like other Members who have spoken, we very much welcome clauses 1 to 4, which allow the discretionary funds of the pensions board to be used more flexibly than hitherto, which seems sensible and appropriate. We welcome the fact that divorced spouses of clergy—in post-retirement divorces—will have some possibility of having their housing position protected. Several of my friends are clergy and clergy spouses, and many feel insecure about their housing position, both while in active ministry and after retirement. A provision that recognises that relationships break down and that individuals should not be dependent on a spouse for a roof over their head, possibly at short notice, is entirely to be welcomed. The changes on retirement housing are therefore good.
	On the pension arrangements, we become nervous when we hear that pension payments will be made by running down the capital of a pension fund. However, the simplest analogy would be to think of this as a closed pension fund in which no new liabilities accrue and in which existing ones may run on for many decades. It is appropriate that we plan ahead for a measured and orderly financing of responsibilities.
	I do not think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) mentioned this point, but it is worth touching on the fact that the Ecclesiastical Committee prompted one change to the Measure. The Committee felt that, in a further seven years, the House should have a substantive opportunity to review the processes and reconsider whether the run-down of capital was being handled in the right way. It felt that the Measure should not go through on the nod under the negative resolution procedure for statutory instruments. That was probably a constructive suggestion, and I know that the Synod approved it without demur.
	Overall, we are comfortable with the proposal. In the unlikely event that the House should seek to divide, I will encourage my colleagues to support the Measure.

David Taylor: I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out the overwhelming majority that the Measure enjoyed in the Synod. It was even bigger than the majorities that we encounter in the parliamentary Labour party.
	I have one concern to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). The commissioners have a range of discretionary responsibilities for parish ministry support, bishops' working costs, grants to cathedrals and money given to other bodies. When the Ecclesiastical Committee discussed the Measure in April 2002, I made the point that the sums that are currently being used to bridge the gap between funds and pre-1998 liabilities were on a substantial rising curve. Is my hon. Friend confident that there will be little, if any squeeze, on the worthy work that the commissioners do on parish ministry support, bishops' working costs and on the others things that I mentioned?
	To clarify my earlier question about the renewal of the seven-year arrangement, I was referring to the seven-year transitional arrangements that allow sums to be paid to the boards of finance in particular dioceses. That arrangement will help them with their liabilities, but it will end, as I understand it, on 31 December 2004. That new burden, which will be unrelieved by any contribution from the Church Commissioners, concerns me in the light of current diocesan financial pressures. I would like reassurance on that point.

Stuart Bell: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for the manner in which they have raised them and for their constructive approach to the Measure.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) asked about the commissioners' power to spend capital. We have the power to spend capital to help dioceses with new pension schemes. As he is aware, that power ends in 2004 and that is to protect the power of the commissioners' fund so that we can help poorer dioceses in other ways. The timetable for phased transitional relief has been agreed with all the dioceses. I shall return to his other points shortly.
	I shall deal chronologically with the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He made the important point that one of the attractive features of the Measure is that it will help divorced spouses who might lose their homes after a separation. That problem is now being rectified, and we have powers to help a spouse or former spouse in that position. He mentioned the Church-state relationship, but I do not wish to widen the debate.

Chris Bryant: Go on.

Stuart Bell: I certainly do not want to do that when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is in the Chamber. I do not want to encourage him to take part in the debate at this stage. We are dealing with one of the interstices in the Church-state relationship, but that relationship is a matter for another debate. I am always willing to listen to contributions on that subject.
	I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). If I may paraphrase the words of a famous former Prime Minister, I assure the hon. Gentleman that his wife's pension is safe in our hands. [Interruption.] This might not be the right place to come to buy a second-hand car, but we are certainly looking after his wife's interests and her pension.
	The hon. Gentleman agreed with clauses 1 to 4 and welcomed the provision on divorced spouses. He made an interesting point that I did not cover in my opening speech because I did not want to bore the House with the intricacies of the relationship between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the General Synod. However, as the matter has been raised, the House might now be aware that one aspect initially concerned the Ecclesiastical Committee. In addition to the Measure providing an initial extension of seven years up to 2011, it also provided for an indefinite number of further extensions after 2011. The General Synod would have been able to obtain them via a statutory instrument that would have been subject to annulment in Parliament.
	As the hon. Member for Salisbury said, and the hon. Member for Northavon emphasised, the importance of the Ecclesiastical Committee's role in the Church-state relationship meant that the Committee thought that it would be inappropriate for the power to be extended by statutory instrument. Instead, it decided that that should be done by means of a Measure that could be brought to the House for a debate like today's. The Measure returned to the General Synod and was amended by omitting the power to obtain further extensions through statutory instruments. The Ecclesiastical Committee was happy that the Church was prepared to amend it in that way, and co-operation between the Committee and the Synod has led to the Measure being debated on the Floor of the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire rightly referred to the additional powers and responsibilities of the commissioners. They have a range of responsibilities upon which they expend their funds. They include parish ministry support, bishops' working costs, grants to cathedrals and money given to other bodies to support their administrative expenditure. As he said, much of that help is discretionary, and we are aware of the additional role. Non-pension responsibilities, however, stand alongside our statutory responsibilities for pensions arising for service from before 1998.
	The key issue facing the commissioners is the management of their assets and income in the most effective and strategic way, so that they can make the best possible investment returns at the same time as they carry out their spending in a planned and coherent fashion. To take up my hon. Friend's point, providing discretionary funds to the parishes that are in need has led to us making substantial contributions of at least #20 million a year and they have been worked out with the Archbishops Council.
	I trust that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. I again commend the Measure to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure

Stuart Bell: I beg to move,
	That the Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
	I shall be brief. The Church of England has a system of synodical government, which gives representatives of clergy and lay people a role, along with bishops, in the governance of the Church at all levels. Although the principles underlying the system are long standing, a modern form of synodical government came into existence with the passing of the Synodical Government Measure in 1969 and the inauguration of the General Synod the following year.
	The main proposals in the Measure before the House provide for amendments to Church representation rules made under the 1969 Measure and make detailed provision for a range of matters relating to the synodical structures of the Church.
	Several of the changes are intended to confer more flexibility or lighten Church organisational structures; examples include reducing the minimum size of diocesan synods from 150 to 120, new arrangements for calculating the number of lay representatives on a parochial church council, and a power for another cleric to chair a parochial church council in the absence of the minister if the minister and the parochial church council agree and the bishop consents.
	Other changes affecting parochial church councils include a new requirement that lay people aged 18 or over should have had their name on the electoral roll of a parish for at least six months before being eligible for election to its parochial church council or the deanery synod. This requirement is seen as a desirable protection against a sudden influx of new members with little previous involvement in parish life.
	In addition, to make changes to Church representation rules, the Measure also make a number of miscellaneous changes to legislation on Church life at diocesan level.

David Drew: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a problem with the Church electoral roll? The problem concerns who is on the roll and how its contents are made known. I raise a tangential but important point: without people's names appearing on the Church's electoral roll, there will be no democracy in the Church, and if their names do not appear on the other electoral roll, or if the Church does not have access to it, the problem will worsen.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who again shows the importance of having these debates on the Floor of the House. Curiously, the Ecclesiastical Committee did not challenge the most contentious proposal in the Measure—the requirement that a lay person should have been on the electoral roll of the parish for at least six months before qualifying for election to the PCC or deanery synod. The purpose of the change, which does not apply to anyone under 18, is to require that commitment be demonstrated to a parish before seeking election to its PCC or the deanery synod. One may feel that six months is a long time; before one can stand as a parliamentary candidate for the Labour party, one has to be a member for two years.
	The measure and the changes include the lightening of certain committee structures and an amendment to the functions of diocesan synods to enable them to approve the annual budget and accounts of the diocesan board of finance. This last change reflects an increasing desire to enhance strategic management by bringing the policy making and financial management of a diocese closer together.
	The changes to synodical government effected by the Measure may at first sight seem both amorphous and modest. Taken together, they none the less represent a valuable and uncontentious first step in the process of synodical reform and development to which the Church stands committed. I therefore commend the Measure to the House.

Robert Key: As the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, better known to some as Barchester, I warmly welcome this very sensible amendment to the small print of the rules of the Church of England. It is of considerable consequence; anyone who is not familiar with the politics of the Church would be surprised at the games of entryism that go on and the carpetbagging that occurs from time to time. These rules, which are designed to get around those problems, are very welcome and relevant.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman refers to carpetbagging. One reason that many people join the electoral roll of a church is so that they can qualify to get married in that church. Does he think that that rule should change?

Robert Key: No, I think that that is fair enough, because, entirely appropriately, residence qualifications are still required to get on the church's electoral roll. I also have no objection in this case to the positive discrimination in favour of young people to whom, under schedule 2, this rule will not apply.
	The Measure is entirely sensible and once again illustrates the importance and relevance of the relationship between the established Church of England and Parliament.

David Drew: I will not delay the House long, but I should like to add to the point that I made when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Unless people are registered on their church's electoral roll, the basic democracy of the Church becomes sadly weakened. For that to happen, however, they must be registered on the wider electoral role, which is becoming increasingly difficult because of data protection.
	We do not need further barriers in the way of getting people on to the electoral roll, and I hope that the Church Commissioners will deal with the problems that have been brought to my attention in my constituency. More than one parochial church council representative has asked me to give them details of who is on the electoral roll as well as the numbers, because of budgetary considerations. The Church must be much more active in ensuring that it includes people on the electoral roll. Those of us who are active in the Church are worried that numbers are ridiculously low, given the importance of the Church in the community.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful for the very clear way in which the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), put the case for the Measure. Indeed, I am delighted to follow the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The hon. Member for Salisbury and I go back some time, as he will recall from school days. I recall the very distinguished role that his father and brother both played in the Church of England, as have some members of my family.
	Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I have no pecuniary interest in the Measure, although I am a communicant member of the Church of England, I have been a member of a parochial church council and my brother is a parish priest. My grandfather was a parish priest in Cornwall at the time of the 1928 prayer book, and had been all his life. That was some 75 years ago and he decided then that it was time for disestablishment. He thought it absurd that the House should debate such issues and saw its role as an absurd intrusion into the work of the Church.
	It is an irony that this interesting Measure, which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough introduced so elegantly, is all about democracy in the Church of England, yet out of the 659 people who in theory could vote on it in a few minutes' time it is unlikely that a majority would be members of the Church of England. In talking about democracy, we are negating democracy, which is a curious situation.
	I hope that we will pass the Measure, which has been thoroughly thought through. It is important that we recognise, however, that it is only the first phase of more contentious proposals that are being considered. It is my ambition that when the second Measure is introduced it will not have to come before the House of Commons.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his new doctrine that we can vote only on things in which we are actively involved? The House normally votes on crime, but I am sure that no hon. Members are criminals. Would that debar them from voting on crime measures?

Paul Tyler: I am tempted to say, XSpeak for yourself."
	In the debate and vote in the Synod, the votes were 24 to nil among the bishops, 160 to four among the clergy, and 175 to 14 among the laity. As has been said, that is a pretty clear majority compared with even the Government's majorities.
	The hon. Member for Stroud made an interesting point about the church electoral roll. I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough responds to that. It is critical to the Measure that the church electoral roll is full of integrity and credibility and that it has the respect of parishioners; otherwise, the hierarchy of Church democracy is at risk.
	The notes and minutes provided by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is a Joint Committee of both Houses, are a model of their kind. I am not a member of the Committee and pay tribute to it for the way in which it has guided us on the issue. The documents explain that there was a sharp division on a number of Measures that form part of the 40 recommendations in the Bridge report. As far as I can establish, it is only those that have not caused controversy that are before us today. That is helpful, but I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough agrees that we should have a full explanation of where opinion is divided if and when the next stage takes place.
	The Committee discussed at length whether someone should be on the PCC electoral roll for 12 or six months and recommended a six-month rule, which is helpful. It will affect not just those who suddenly decide that they want to be involved in church work, but those who have moved from another parish where they were extremely active. In my part of the world, Cornwall, we want the expertise of retired people who have given good service to their parish and church in, for example, London. I have not come across any parochial church council that is worried about entryism. They are much more worried about departure, especially the call to their maker.

Chris Bryant: I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but there is significant concern in the Church of England about many cases in which groups of people have tried to take over the local church. That is a worry in many parishes and the Measure is important.

Paul Tyler: I would not for a moment suggest that the Measure is not important. I accept the six-month requirement. It is perfectly right and proper, although the same entryism could happen in six months and a day. In the end, however, that is democracy, as the hon. Gentleman's party knows only too well. Entryism was a major feature of the Labour party in the 1980s and he is right to be worried.
	It is important that we recognise that the recommendation by the Ecclesiastical Committee is sensible. It is a useful compromise and, as I understand it, accepted by the entire Synod. I accept that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) has particular expertise in the Church and direct personal knowledge of it, but we are more likely to look for more recruits for parochial church councils rather than to worry about too many suddenly arriving. I was nominated to a PCC, but we held the first election to it in recent memory, which ensured that better candidates were selected than me. So I am well aware of the ways in which the electoral system works.
	The proposals are intended to improve the flexibility of democracy in the Church of England. Paragraph 4 of the report recommends a more realistic approach than that set out in the present arrangements, especially for smaller parishes. My parish in Cornwall is relatively small and we want to ensure that democracy is as healthy as it is in more populous parishes.
	Continuity is also important. The way in which elections are held has been dealt with intelligently and sensibly and we have managed to avoid a problem. I understand the argument for a minimum size for the diocesan synod, but how many are in the band under consideration? The proposal is that the minimum size should be reduced from 150 to 120. I do not know how many diocesan synods would fall into that category. There was a suggestion to reduce it to 100, which might be more practical and effective in some circumstances.
	The schedule is the critical consideration. The Synod team has been considering it for, I think, nine years, which is a long time.

Stuart Bell: Since 1997.

Paul Tyler: But much work was done before that. The gestation period has been long. There is always a worry with any Measure that the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but the detail should fulfil the aspirations of those who want to make the reforms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us that the changes have the unanimous support of those in the Synod who proposed them, so that the Measure fulfils their expectations and aspirations.
	I end as I began by saying that I am not only a loyal and supportive member of the Church of England, but a dedicated supporter of disestablishment. I hope that when we reach the second phase of the measures on democracy, we are able to let the Church of England be a democratic institution for the first time in its life since its creation by Henry VIII.

Stuart Bell: With the leave of the House, I will respond to some points. The electoral roll has preoccupied many Members. The Measure makes a change to eligibility. Parishes are experiencing difficulties in being able to inspect the civil electoral civil roll, which they used to do for the purposes of electing church wardens, and we are looking into that matter.
	A lay person is entitled to have his name entered if he is baptised, 16 or over, has signed an application form and declares himself to be either a member of the Church of England or of a church in communion with it and resident in the parish or to be such a member not being resident in the parish habitually having attended public worship in it during a period of six months prior to enrolment. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was absolutely right. The original period was one year but, following debate, was reduced to six months.
	The third condition is to be a member in good standing of a church that subscribes to the doctrine of the holy trinity although it is not a church in communion with the Church of England. The person must also be prepared to declare himself a member of the Church of England, having habitually attended public worship in a parish during the six months prior to enrolment. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was perfectly right to remind me that although the Bridge report on synodical government was produced in 1997, discussion and research took place over several years beforehand. We heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the mills of God grind slowly and exceeding small. They certainly ground exceeding small in respect of that Measure.
	When the report was published, response to it was divided. There were a number of controversial proposals, chiefly with regard to the size and composition of the General Synod. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the reduction in the number of members from 150 to 120 and specifically asked for the context. I will be glad to give him a reply in writing. I said earlier that the Ecclesiastical Committee did not challenge the Measure, but that does not mean that the Committee did not debate it in depth. It was a contentious proposal but it went unchallenged. I refer to the requirement that a lay person should be on the electoral roll of the parish for at least six months before qualifying for election to the parochial church council or deanery synod.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a pertinent comment about the Measure's relevance and answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), obviating the need for me to intervene. He referred also to the Church-state relationship that brings us to the Floor of the House, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and, in a sedentary intervention, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
	I hear a lot of propositions—I am propositioned all the time—about disestablishment but no one makes any specific proposals. We have had a lot of time since the days of Henry VIII. It has taken 100 years to get around to reforming the House of Lords, so I dread to think how long it will take to get around to disestablishment. However, I shall be happy to hear from anyone with proposals to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to the various problems that have arisen and spoke about a more proactive Church. I think that we would all say amen to that.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier that we should not believe everything that we read in the newspapers and that sometimes stories are invented. However, I was sorry to read that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be retiring at the next election. The hon. Gentleman also gave his age away. I will not divulge it on the Floor of the House. In one conversation with him, I mentioned that I had been to 25 Labour party conferences and felt proud of that achievement. He replied that he had attended 40 Liberal party conferences. Anyone who can attend 40 Liberal party conferences in his lifetime merits great congratulations from Labour Members.
	The hon. Gentleman described my speech as elegant, and I hope that he also found it eloquent. I shall not go into detail about his speech. However, he referred to the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee and wanted to be advised of the next planning stage. We shall certainly take him up on that. On the issue of 150 or 120 members, he said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and referred to the need for detail. Of course, the devil, who is never far away, is in the detail. He also mentioned total unanimity in the Synod, which, like this Parliament, is never likely to achieve unanimity.
	I am grateful that our short debate on synodical government has received the approval of the House and has been wide ranging in the best traditions of the House. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Fisheries

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In case it was not entirely clear from the Order Paper, this debate will conclude at 6 pm. I should also tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 2341/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required; European Union Document No. 2369/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector; European Union Document No. 2370/2002, a Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels; European Union Document No. 2371/2002, a Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy; and European Union Document No. 14886/2002, a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish.
	As I reported to the House in the pre-Fisheries Council debate on 21 November, the December Council was always going to be exceptionally difficult. It involved major decisions on the common fisheries policy and the review; the major issue of the cod recovery programme in the North sea; and effort management. The council was held over a five-day period, and involved a great deal of work and discussion. I pay tribute to my officials, my colleague in the Scottish Executive and the fishermen's leaders, who were actively engaged in discussions throughout the week.
	In our previous debate, I set out the Government's objectives and our intended action against the background of scientific advice that the North sea should be closed to all fishing for cod-related stocks and the serious consequences of that advice for the fishing industry. I made it clear that total closure of the North sea, or an 80 per cent. reduction in fishing effort, which is frankly hardly different from total closure, or, indeed, the seven days a month limit were not acceptable and would simply destroy the infrastructure of the UK fishing industry. There would not be much point in introducing difficult and painful stock recovery programmes if there was no infrastructure left in the UK to benefit in future.
	Those proposals were successfully resisted, but I have no illusions about the severe impact that the recovery proposals that were finally agreed will have on sections of our white fish fleet—I shall say more about that in a moment.

Shona McIsaac: I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate because of commitments in Committee. As my hon. Friend knows, some hon. Members fought to get compensation for distant-water trawlers after the Government's action in the cod wars. What is he doing to ensure that fishing communities get compensation quickly if they lose their livelihood so that we do not have another 25-year fight for their rights?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Of course, there is a case for a support package for the fishing industry, and I shall say more about that later. I recognise that many fishing communities, including those in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, will be affected to a varying extent by the changes—we are not going to ignore that.
	There are aspects of the three amendments tabled by Opposition parties with which I do not disagree. However, I find the Conservative amendment the most unreasonable. One issue raised by the amendments is the need to recognise the impact on fishing communities. We do recognise it, and take it seriously. I shall come to that in a moment.

Alex Salmond: When the Minister returned from the Fisheries Council blinking into the sunlight, he describe the package as Xa balanced outcome" and Xa turning point", whereas the Scottish Minister who was carrying his bags that week described it as Xinequitable, unfair and crude". Which was it?

Elliot Morley: I understand that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to make such points, but I can assure him that Ross Finnie was involved in every stage, every aspect and every detail of the negotiations that week. I very much appreciate his support and backing in an extremely difficult negotiation. I do not disagree with anything that Ross Finnie said in the Scottish Parliament about those discussions. If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say in the debate, he will find that there are echoes of what Ross Finnie said.
	I made it clear in discussions before the Council that I could not and would not ignore the scientific advice, which was serious, and that we had to respond to that advice in a credible and responsible way. Destroying fish stocks will, of course, also destroy the fishing industry. My approach was guided by the views of Members of the House and reports from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which considered the common fisheries policy and concluded that
	Xthe manifest failure of the CFP during its first two decades has been in large measure due to lack of political will in the face of clear scientific advice."
	I had to take that comment seriously. It was echoed by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am pleased to see that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is present. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on the CFP stated that
	Xthe state of some stocks, particularly that of North Sea cod, is so poor there can be no excuse for failing to act rapidly to reverse the declines."
	The report continued:
	XCourageous and decisive action is needed to safeguard both stocks and the fishing livelihoods that depend upon them."
	I took those comments from the two all-party Select Committees very seriously.

John Redwood: The EU documentation makes it clear that discards—the throwing of dead fish back into the sea—is a massive problem. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are needlessly wasted every year under that mad policy. Why did the Minister press not just for study and discussion but for immediate action to stop the scandal of killing all those small fish, throwing them back into the water and making no use of them?

Elliot Morley: We do want action, and we want it to be effective. That means identifying the problems. I am pleased that one of the positive outcomes related to CFP reform, including a discard policy, which addresses part of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I should emphasise that the vast majority of discards in the fishing industry are of undersized and non-commercial fish. We must address the matter as an aspect of fisheries management. I shall speak about that in due course.

Anthony Steen: As the Minister knows, we have been going round this track for about 30 years. We could go back 30 years or so—the hon. Gentleman would not have been in government—and find Ministers of both parties saying that there were too many fishermen and too few fish, and that we must do something about it. Nothing has been done about it. Ministers keep saying that the scientific evidence is terribly important and we must do something about it, but nothing happens. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. I enjoy hearing him say the same thing every time. Are we going to make any progress? Surely the only way to make progress is to recognise that there is only a certain amount of fish and that there must be an auction. The fishermen should decide who will bid for each quota, dividing the amount of fish by the number of fishermen. We cannot go on trying to decide that fishing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is breaking into a speech.

Elliot Morley: As always, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has some interesting suggestions regarding fisheries. I know that he has extensive experience of and background in the subject. There is some truth in what he says. For many years the problem has been acknowledged and people have been saying that we must do something about it, but action will inevitably be painful. It has always been resisted both by Fisheries Ministers from European countries and by the industry. Even now, there are people who deny the need to take action on the basis of the scientific advice. If we do not address the problem, there will be the constant spiral of decline that the hon. Gentleman correctly identifies.

David Curry: On the absence of political will, does the Minister recall that a decade ago the House voted to introduce effort control in the form of days at sea? That was never implemented and, like practically every other conservation measure, it was fiercely opposed by the industry. Does the Minister think that, in retrospect, had it been applied, we would be in quite the mess that we are in now, including over days at sea?

Elliot Morley: I thought the right hon. Gentleman might mention that, and he has every right to do so. There are different forms of effort management. I recall the debate on the proposals to introduce effort control. There were problems with that. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there were great difficulties in terms of bureaucracy, ascertaining people's right to days, and the appeal procedures. It was a difficult and complicated structure, and there were some valid criticisms from the industry, which I acknowledge.
	There is no perfect system of fisheries management. If there were, it would have been introduced long ago. We must therefore examine the range of management tools available and try to adapt them in the most effective way. I have always had an open-minded approach to these matters, including effort control. I listen to what the industry says. I tried to persuade the Commissioner to take a different approach and consider a recovery programme that did not involve effort control of that kind. With reference to Ross Finnie's remarks, I agree that the measure is crude. Of course, it is an interim measure, and I shall discuss the details in a moment.

Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is right to say that there is no perfect system of management of stocks, but would it not be an awful lot easier to tie the industry in if we had proper, effective regional management of the industry in the North sea? How soon does he believe he can achieve that?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I do agree with that. One of the successes of the CFP reform is that we have put in place the regional advisory councils. We want to get them up and running as quickly as possible. It is the beginning of a process, and we need to build on those councils. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an element of regional management and regional involvement, particularly the involvement of the industry, is essential for future fisheries management. That is the direction in which we want to go and for which we were arguing.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will my hon. Friend immediately discount the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) that the market should play some part in divvying up the fish? The birthright of my constituents in Hastings and Rye, who cannot afford to enter the market, would be compromised. Will my hon. Friend discount that Conservative proposal entirely?

Elliot Morley: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend, who has been a great advocate for and friend of the Hastings Beach fleet. I made it a priority to exempt the under-10 m fleet from the effort control restrictions, recognising that it is a low-impact fishery. I understand the concerns for such fleets, which are unlikely to become involved in an open-bidding market. Quota is bought and sold; that is a feature of the fishing industry, but the under-10 m fleet is not part of the inshore fleet. The inshore fleet is non-sector, and managed by the Department. We recognise the low impact that it has. It should be exempted from the range of measures that we were successful in achieving.

Stephen Ladyman: May I pass on to my hon. Friend the thanks of the Ramsgate under- 10 m fishing fleet for his efforts? He gets all too little praise in the House. The fleet is broadly pleased with the outcome of the negotiations and wants to thank the Minister and also his officials, who are unfailingly helpful to it.

Elliot Morley: I appreciate that. It is worth remembering that the majority of the boats in the United Kingdom fishing fleet are under 10 m. They support many small, isolated communities. They employ low-impact, traditional methods. I have always had a great deal of admiration for the way in which they operate, and always tried to take their needs into account.

Lawrie Quinn: On the issue of under-10 m boats, will my hon. Friend also confirm my understanding that recreational fishermen who have diversified from the main fishery would fall into that category and therefore not be affected by these proposals?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I can confirm that both under-10 m boats involved in recreational fishery and larger boats that are not carrying fishing gear but are involved in recreational fishery are exempt from the restrictions.

Alex Salmond: Can we just inject a little reality into this? The overwhelming majority of the white fish industry does not depend on boats under 10 m, important though they are in certain communities. The overwhelming majority of the white fish industry depends on reasonably sized boats. That sector is now at risk of total financial and fishing collapse over the next few months. I know that the Minister has been asked a variety of questions, but will he now turn his attention to the question of whether it is his policy to see that vital historical part of the fleet survive or not?

Elliot Morley: It is absolutely my priority to ensure that that part of the fleet survives. Our fishing fleet is divided into different sectors which have different priorities and operate in different ways. They are all equally important to me as the UK Fisheries Minister. It is worth remembering, however, that the majority of vessels are under 10 m, and that an awful lot of people are involved in that sector. They have needs and rights, which I recognise. I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, particularly in relation to his own constituency, that the white fish fleet on the east coast of Scotland is a very important economic driver in the fishing industry. I absolutely concede that point.

Andrew George: I thank the Minister for giving way once again. His taking of interventions is one of the valuable aspects of this debate, because a great deal is elucidated by it. In the light of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) about regional management committees, which we would prefer, does the Minister agree that there has been a change of culture in the industry in recent years? Does he also agree that we need a change from treating fishermen as perpetrators to treating them as partners in the management of their industry? That is the big change that has taken place over the last 10 years, and I urge the Minister to take that on board in future deliberations on the development of the policy.

Elliot Morley: Yes, I absolutely accept that. It is unfortunate that there has been a widening gulf between the fishermen and the scientists, for example. One of the objectives to which I want to turn my attention is how to bring those two sectors together in future. I shall touch upon that again later.

Anthony Steen: One or two of the Minister's Back Benchers mentioned two or three boats with six or eight people running them round the bay in Bexhill or Ramsgate and tried to distract him from the important point that I made earlier. I should be grateful if he could deal with it now. Would it not be a way forward to have an auction of the quota, once the European Community has fixed the quota? That way, the fish would be allowed to live, and we could then eat them.

Elliot Morley: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a serious answer to that. I can see some major disadvantages to his suggestion. I know exactly what he is saying, and there is an element of market forces at work in quota trading as it stands. That can be beneficial, particularly in relation to producer organisations ensuring that quota remains within their regions. There are advantages to that. If, however, we follow the full-blown logic of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would result in the disadvantage of the Icelandic individual transferable quota system, which, although it has some advantages in management terms, has had the effect of concentrating ownership of the quota in the hands of a very limited number of companies. That is a problem. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's rather disparaging remarks about those who work the in-shore boats in my hon. Friends' constituencies. They are as important to me as anybody else; they support families and communities, and they have every right to be taken into account and to have their needs recognised. I intend to ensure that that happens.
	I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) about interventions. I do hope that my taking interventions will not lead to the length of my opening speech being held against me. I had prepared a speech of a fairly standard length, but I am happy to take interventions because this is an important debate on serious issues and I know that everybody who attends such debates has a genuine and sincere interest in them. I take that very seriously.

Joan Humble: May I return my hon. Friend to remarks that he was making earlier about the importance of scientific advice? The fishing communities that are being hit by the cuts in quota feel that it is equally important that the views of the fishermen are taken into account when determining the level of fish stocks. Nobody disputes that the levels have gone down, but the extent of that reduction can be disputed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he takes seriously the views of the fishermen who are actually fishing for these stocks?

Elliot Morley: I do take that seriously, and I shall touch on that matter in a moment. The experiences and views of the fishermen—the data from their log books, for example—are taken into account in relation to stock projection. I recognise that there are some problems, however. In that respect, I want to try to bring the two sides together and involve them more to ensure that the fishing industry is involved in the scientific projections and that the scientists listen to what the industry has to say.

John Hayes: We welcome that assurance. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned a spirit of partnership, which is necessary. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) takes a great interest in the Fleetwood fishermen, and she will recall that I reminded the Minister that, in 2000, there was a tie-up east of the Isle of Man based on the sort of scientific advice that he now advocates, because the scientists claimed that it was not a cod spawning area. It turned out to be one, and the tie-up was a disaster. The fishermen were right and the scientists were wrong on that occasion.

Elliot Morley: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman has been talking to, but that is totally wrong. In fact, the fishermen in Fleetwood have raised a number of technical issues with me about the cod recovery programme, which I took very seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood arranged meetings for me in Fleetwood and I went along and talked to the fishermen. Their concern was about the level of cod in the eastern Irish sea. As a result of their representations, which I took seriously, we arranged trial trawls in the eastern Irish sea—by chartering boats from the fishing industry—which demonstrated that the cod population in the spawning period was extremely low. In fact, the closed area in the western Irish sea was precisely the area in which there was a concentration. That has been the basis of the three-year cod recovery programme, which is supported by the fishermen of the Irish sea.
	It was inevitable, given that the UK had the majority of the quota for the most threatened stocks, that the December Council was never going to provide a good outcome for the fishing industry as regards quotas. But not responding to those threats or to the scientific advice was not an option for us either, not least because the threat of emergency measures being imposed by the Commission was a very real one, and we had to take that into account. We paid a great deal of attention to the details of the common fisheries policy and, in terms of the reforms, this at least provided a better outcome for the UK.
	In relation to the reforms, the UK achieved all its principal objectives. Those objectives have been repeatedly called for by hon. Members in the House and they include a commitment to a multi-annual approach to stock management and to recovery plans for depleted stocks, and the renewal of our six and 12-mile zones. We pressed very hard for that measure to be without limits, but, unfortunately, the Commission's legal services advised that all aspects of Commission and Council decisions have to be reviewed at intervals. The wording of the final decision contained an assumption that these provisions will continue even though they are up for review. That was important.

Alex Salmond: As the Minister knows, the Spanish fleet now has access to the North sea, but not to pressurised stocks. I have read the Commission's account of the Council meeting, and it seems to suggest that inspections of Spanish boats in the North sea can be carried out only with the consent of the Spanish authorities. If that is the case, it will be a disaster. I hope that it is not the case. Will the Minister tell me whether it is the case, and clarify the account that I have seen in the Commission's explanatory notes?

Elliot Morley: That is most certainly not my understanding. Any EU vessel within a member-state zone is subject to the enforcement and inspection measures agreed by the EU.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister confirm that this country will use its powers and inspect those vessels?

Elliot Morley: This country inspects all vessels that are fishing in our waters and we will continue to do so. Indeed, enforcement and inspection is one of the areas that have been strengthened and we strongly argued that that should happen.
	We also obtained the retention of the principle of relative stability, which is very important and is one of the priorities of our fishing industry, as hon. Members have said. We have also retained the Hague preference. That was not easy, because it benefited only the Republic of Ireland and us, but it has nevertheless been retained. As has been pointed out, there was no adjustment of stock allocations in the North sea in favour of Spain or Portugal. Even though they have access under accession, that is meaningless economically without a quota to go with it.
	The Shetland box has been retained pending a review of all restricted areas in 2003. Public aid for fishing vessels is being ended, as is aid for the transfer of EU fishing vessels to third countries from 31 December 2004. That issue was controversial and was an important sticking point in the Commission negotiations. Indeed, there was a threat that Commission powers would be used in relation to that issue because it proved so controversial. We would have preferred the aid to have ended immediately, but its doing so in 2004 is a reasonable outcome in the circumstances. There are also limitations on modernisation aid.
	Countries that use public funds for building will, in addition to the aggregation penalties of 1:1.35 that they will have to apply for vessels of more than 100 tonnes, have to reduce capacity by 3 per cent. over two years as a penalty. That was also agreed at the Fisheries Council. There is also an increase in the maximum rate of scrapping grants in the EU.
	Major improvements in enforcement arrangements are important in relation to what I have been saying about better information and co-operation, and information sharing between member states. Provision to establish regional advisory councils has been mentioned. We regard the councils as very important and see them as the beginning of the process. We want to strengthen them over time, but the priority was to establish them, as the proposal was controversial when it was originally made.
	The policy on discards, on which I can now provide some details, includes technical measures dealing with the structure of nets and making them more selective. The policy will take into account the issue of minimum landing sizes, which has been raised before in the House. Hon. Members will be pleased that the landing sizes are going to be reviewed with a view to the possibility of raising them. Catch composition in relation to defined mesh sizes also needs to be considered, as will the application of closed areas and real-time closures when, for example, there are temporary concentrations of juvenile fish or spawning areas are identified.
	The fishing industry has been keen to make progress on all those issues, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised on a number of occasions. I am pleased to see that those points have been agreed.

Peter Duncan: The Minister suggested that the Government were effectively satisfied that they had got all the CFP reforms that they wanted. Does that mean that they are now satisfied that the CFP will deliver for British and Scottish fisherman in the next 30 years, just as it has failed them for the past 30 years?

Elliot Morley: These are important improvements, but I do not want to pretend that they are the be-all and end-all. As far as I am concerned, this is the beginning of a process. However, the changes are beneficial and address some of the problems in the CFP. Of course, we want to make further progress, and we will do so over time.

Bob Blizzard: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming my hon. Friend's achievement in exempting under-10 m vessels from the days-at-sea regime? Will he also confirm that he has secured extra days' fishing for those whose method is long lining? Most of them are covered by the rule, but will he confirm that the figure is 19 days for those who are not covered, bearing in mind that people would want a couple of days off a week or eight days off a month? Does he agree that that is quite an achievement?

Elliot Morley: Following the representations that my hon. Friend has made and having met long liners from his constituency, I told the Commission that, in relation to recovery plans, we should take into account the sort of gear that is being used and how selective it is. Long lining is very selective and involves minimal discards. Indeed, it is often possible to return the fish to the water alive and that has been recognised in the 19-day allocation. Other forms of gear may be equally selective. I should like to explore that issue and will continue to argue for further exemptions for gear that is selective and minimises discards.

Austin Mitchell: One of the most selective and conservation-efficient forms of fishing is anchor seining, which is practised by Grimsby vessels. Will my hon. Friend work to ensure that that is excluded in the same way as long lining?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I most certainly will. I know that the Grimsby anchor seiners use a net with very large mesh because they are targeting large, high-quality fish. Of course, I cannot ignore the fact that we have a severe problem with cod. That includes taking into account the total allowable catch and total quotas, and that involves the anchor seiners. However, as we develop the cod recovery programme, we will have to take into account the issue of minimising discards and selectivity. It is perfectly legitimate for whatever system is in place to recognise that fishermen are using selective gear, and the anchor seiners are certainly a case in point.

Peter Duncan: In considering very selective forms of fishing and the settlement that has been reached, we see that Danish factory boats can sail off into the sunset with a by-catch that is effectively unlimited and unaffected. That seems a totally inequitable settlement and I would be obliged if the Minister would comment.

Elliot Morley: I agree that that is unfinished business in relation to the industrial fleet, and yes, the arrangement is inequitable. As I have said before, the problem is a lack of scientific information in relation to the level of by-catches of the industrial fleet, especially of the sand eel. There is no argument in relation to the Norwegian pout fishery, which is included in the discards strategy. One of the assurances that we have in relation to reform of the CFP is that the impact of industrial fishing and its by-catch in particular will be examined in detail, which I very much welcome. In case I have not written this down in my notes, I should also say that we reached agreement on extension of the closed area to industrial fishing off the east coast of Scotland and Northumbria for a fourth year. That is the first time that a closed area has ever been agreed in relation to industrial fishing.

Alex Salmond: If I remember rightly, that area was agreed because of the potential effect on sea birds, as the Minister will recall. Given that the area has been agreed, that he has been banging on about industrial fishing for as long as he has been speaking for the Government about fisheries and that he has now been the Fisheries Minister for more than five years, why is no research available on the impact of industrial fishing, which we all know is devastating to a marine environment? He is telling us that there is no research. Why not? Is he not the Minister?

Elliot Morley: I said that there were no clear scientific findings. Research has been conducted, but to date, it has not identified a very high white fish by-catch. We need to do more work on that issue, but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that nothing has happened. The problem is that the work that has been done has not identified the sort of problem that is being portrayed.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, fishing for human consumption should always take priority. I believe that the scale of industrial fishing must have an impact on ecology and ecosystems, so we must take the issue seriously and examine it. Progress is slow and I am not exactly pleased about that, but since I have been fisheries Minister, a TAC has been applied to industrial fishing for the first time. That TAC has been cut since I have been a Minister, although not by as much as I would like, and closed areas have been introduced. That is a bit of progress compared to what happened in the past. I am not pretending that it is enough, but I do not think that he should allege that nothing has been done.

Andrew George: The Minister said that there had been insufficient research and therefore implied that there is insufficient information. He will know that, as was reported in Fishing News on 13 December, two Danish industrial vessels were found with landings on board of which between half and three quarters was white fish. Both were landing 500 tonnes of fish. We know that that has a devastating effect. Frankly, we do not need any more research on the matter. Action needs to be taken now, and that is the widespread feeling in the industry.

Elliot Morley: I know that. I raised the issue with the Commission and referred specifically to the story in Fishing News. However, the Pout industrial fishery has a white fish by-catch. The story covered an illegal landing and the Danish authorities are dealing with the fishermen. Denmark has far more draconian penalties than this country. It can remove people's fishing licences—a penalty that I might like to consider.
	Although the story covers illegal activity, that does not mean that we should not tackle the issue, which demonstrates the impact of industrial fishing. However, we must deal with illegal activity wherever it occurs. It is unfortunately not restricted to one country. Any fisherman who has been involved in black fish landings or misreporting has done equal damage to stocks and the reputation of our industry. When we pressed the Commissioner for alternatives that involved technical measures, we encountered some cynicism in the Commission because of the record of widespread abuse of the rules and black fish landings. Any fishermen who have been involved in that have undermined not only conservation and the future of the fishing stocks for their companions, but the credibility of their countries when they argue for change.

Angus Robertson: The Under-Secretary said that the Danish authorities had draconian penalties, which he would consider introducing in the United Kingdom. If he had read more than the introductory paragraph in Fishing News, he might have stumbled across the fact that the Danish authorities have withdrawn the licences of the two boats for one month. Is that a draconian measure?

Elliot Morley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask fishermen about the effect of not being able to go to sea for a month. That is not the only penalty that has been applied.

Michael Weir: The Minister mentioned cynicism about black fish and other illegal activity. However, according to the Commission's figures, there have been fewer prosecutions of UK fishermen than those of other EU nations. In that case, why does the burden appear to fall on this country's fishermen?

Elliot Morley: Because the hon. Gentleman refers to a one-year report. I am glad that our enforcement and control measures are so effective. That has been one of our priorities. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the infraction proceedings, which proved humiliating for the UK because of our failure to enforce quotas properly for 11 years up to 1997. My comments apply to the past because enforcement and control has improved. Nevertheless, such a reputation dies slowly. I repeat that all those who have been involved in misreporting and black fish landings have done the fishing industry no favours.
	The recovery plan is an interim measure. The arrangements will be established pending further discussions, with the end of March as the target date for agreement and July as that for implementation. A great deal of work remains to be done. I understand the fishing industry's anxieties about the proposals for the North sea and the west of Scotland. During the negotiations, I met industry representatives regularly in Brussels. Leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations made powerful arguments and forcefully presented their members' views. I tried to respond to them and take them into account as much as possible.
	Short-term pain is inevitable given the scientific advice and the relevant stocks. The aim is to secure a long-term future, and I regret the short-term effect on individuals and communities. I understand the implications, and that is why we have worked so hard to provide as much flexibility in the schemes as is consistent with scientific advice. That involved Government activity at all levels, including the intervention of the Prime Minister, to ensure the maximum flexibility that we believed that the science justified.
	The Commission was rightly adamant, given the state of the stocks, that the emergency recovery plan had to be agreed and implemented without delay. It needed to be simple, even crude if necessary. The Commission was also adamant that the plan had to make a genuine impact on fishing effort—another justifiable position given the fair scientific conclusions that the dire state of the stocks is directly attributable to the failure of the TAC-based management policy that has been pursued until now to achieve the necessary reduction in effort.
	The Commission originally proposed that white fish demersal trawlers should be allowed a mere seven days a month out of port. That would have meant unacceptable devastation to the economies of most of the relevant UK vessels. My colleagues and I spent almost the entire five-day Council meeting arguing for an increase that would strike a balance between maximum flexibility and the scientific advice.
	The solution that we eventually secured will allow the UK's demersal trawlers 15 days a month. I shall explain some of the details. Hon. Members will note that the regulations specify a monthly allowance of nine days for such trawlers. However, the EU text allows extra days to be allocated to member states to compensate for steaming time between ports and fishing grounds. There is also provision for the allocation of further days on the basis of the achieved or expected results of the decommissioning proposals. In line with what the industry pressed for, I ensured that the decommissioning round last year and the technical measures that the industry had implemented were taken into account in the effort calculations.
	The relevant provisions are in annexe 17 of the regulations, which set TACs and quotas for 2003. They will result in UK white fish demersal trawlers receiving an extra six days a month—a total of 15 days. That days-at-sea scheme applies in the North sea and the west of Scotland from 1 February. As I said earlier, it does not apply to vessels that are under 10 m in length. Different days-at-sea allowances are set for different sorts of gear, as hon. Members pointed out. There is no limit on pelagic trawlers and 25 days a month are allowed for nephrops vessels. That means that they can operate as normal. The days are specified to try to prevent effort from increasing.

Archy Kirkwood: The nephrops fishery fears that effort will be diverted as a result of the closure. Will the Under-Secretary give some assurances to places such as Eyemouth in my constituency, where such fishing takes place?

Elliot Morley: Yes, we recognise that there is always a risk of diversion of effort. However, measures exist to counter that, such as the ceiling and way in which the calculations work. Those who fish for nephrops must also have a nephrops net. However, we take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously.

Alex Salmond: For clarity, will the Under-Secretary confirm that even the 15 days have been bought at the expense of not only past decommissioning and technical change but an expected further decommissioning round? The industry did not argue for that, and the Under-Secretary knows it.

Elliot Morley: It is true that the UK has made a commitment to a decommissioning scheme. The inevitable result of the pressures on the industry is that a decommissioning scheme must be part of the package. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. As it was always inevitable that we would have to consider that, there is nothing wrong in obtaining extra days for the fishing fleet as part of the commitment.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Under-Secretary confirm the percentage reduction that is required for us to buy the extra days? There is currently a dispute in Scotland about the number of white fish boats in the fleet. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that an unrealistically liberal number of boats will not have to be taken into account?

Elliot Morley: I can confirm that the decommissioning reduction will take place in the North sea white fish fleet. We will be considering a reduction of between 15 and 20 per cent. That is a reasonable target. I cannot give exact figures immediately for making an impact on the problem and helping the fishing industry, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. As he appreciates, management of the Scottish fleet is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

Alan Reid: The Under-Secretary said that the nephrops fleet was exempt and was allowed 25 days at sea. Does he realise that some nephrops vessels in the west of Scotland use twin rigs and mesh sizes of more than 100 m—Interruption.]—I mean 100 mm? There is therefore an anomaly. Those vessels are restricted to 15 days at sea, but if they used a smaller mesh size, they would get 25 days at sea. Will the Under-Secretary sort out the problem so that nephrops fishermen can continue to use larger mesh sizes?

Elliot Morley: I suspect that that is the kind of catch balance that individual fishermen are going for. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that such points of detail need to be addressed as part of the talks about the regime that will be in place from July. That is inevitable, and no one is pretending that this is not a crude scheme. It is not our preferred option, and in trying to refine it between now and March, we will address some of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Alex Salmond: What happens between now and July? Will the prawners have to revert to 80 mm to get the extra days? The Minister will appreciate the cost of re-gearing a boat.

Elliot Morley: I do, but I do not know the exact catch composition or the fishery concerned, and the best way to deal with that point is to consider the advice of the department in Scotland with responsibility for fisheries.

Anthony Steen: Most of the interventions have been from the Scots. [Interruption.] I am not holding that against them, I am just stating a fact. The concern in the west country is that Scottish fishermen will move south. The deal that the Minister has managed to pull off for the south-west was better than most Members thought he could pull off, and we are grateful for that, but what happens when the Scots come marauding down into the English channel, eating up the fish that are currently fished by west countrymen. Is he going to erect some sort of barrier to prevent that from happening?

Elliot Morley: No, their vessels are UK vessels, and they are entitled to fish in UK waters according to the rules and to their quota—as, indeed, is every fishing vessel. Our job is to look at the immediate problems, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the south-west has been exempted from the effort control regime. That happened because it does not have the same kind of problems. The industry also asked me to ensure that measures that have been in place for some years in respect of the Irish sea—and which are showing some welcome, if modest, signs of improvement—are also taken into account, and I have done so.
	The days at sea scheme will be applied to the North sea and the west of Scotland from 1 February. It exempts the Xunder-10s" and the pelagic trawlers, and there is no real restriction on the nephrops trawlers. My colleagues and I attach great importance to protecting sections of the industry against unwarranted restrictions. The arrangements do not apply in the Irish sea. Last year's cod recovery arrangements have been in place for some time; they are working, and the industry is supporting them. I also recognise the commitment that the industry has made in that regard.
	In addition, the Council adopted TACs, which represent reductions of some 50 per cent. on 2002 levels for key white fish stocks of cod, haddock and whiting. Taken as a whole, TACs for pelagic species are largely the same as in 2002. In respect of the three nephrops stocks that are of interest to the UK, we secured a repeat of the 2002 levels, despite the Commission's original proposal for reductions. We considered that proposal to be unjustified, and we successfully argued against it.
	I fully recognise that many members of the UK industry consider days-at-sea restrictions to be anathema. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to argue that things should carry on unchanged, or to ignore the scientific advice, and we must act if the mixed white fish fishery is to have any long-term future. The agreed provisions are much less devastating than the original proposal, but I understand that they are unwelcome and will have an impact. They represent the best balance that could be struck at this time between the industry's long-term and short-term interests, and in terms of the level of support within the council.
	We shall obviously need to take further management decisions in future as we travel the road to recovery—not least when the Commission fulfils its intention to introduce proposals for a more sophisticated and longer-term recovery plan. That is supposed to happen by 15 February, and they could enter into force by 1 July, but a lot of work yet needs to be done. During the discussions, we will need to aim for the same balance that we sought in respect of the emergency recovery plan.
	It is at least encouraging to note that in future discussions on fisheries management, we shall be working under a stronger and sounder common fisheries policy framework than in the past, but unfinished issues remain. We have touched on industrial fishing, minimum mesh size and minimum landing size, which are being addressed. Moreover, the hake recovery plan is also supposed to be finalised by July. We did achieve what the industry asked for, which was a mid-term review of the scientific advice on cod, and if it proves to be different from previous advice, it will of course be linked to TACs. That will also be dealt with by the scientific and technical committee, and it will provide an opportunity to look at the details of effort management.
	During the recovery programme, I want also to look at ways of decoupling haddock and whiting stocks from cod recovery, because I realise that they are not in as poor shape as cod stocks. However, we do not want to over-emphasise the condition of those stocks, because there is cause for concern. I am very interested in work on separator trawls. Certain designs of separator trawls could allow the use of 110 mm mesh in a mixed fishery, with a larger mesh underneath to allow cod to escape. I want to explore such initiatives with the industry, and for it to become more involved in scientific studies.

Anne Begg: On separator trawls, has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the information—I sent it to him this week—from a retired constituent of mine who used to work in the fishing industry? He did a great deal of work on that initiative a few years' ago, and he hopes that the ideas that he developed then might be of use to the industry.

Elliot Morley: I should be very interested to read about those ideas. Separator trawls for mixed fisheries have been trialled by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, so some work has already been done. Of course, if we are to get acceptance it is likely that we will have to demonstrate to the Commission the effectiveness of that initiative.

Lawrie Quinn: The Minister is detailing the empathy that he feels for the short-term pain of people at the quayside, and many people in my constituency are fearful of bankruptcy in the short term. Can he tell the House what efforts he has made to hold discussions with banking institutions or regional development agencies in England? Can he also say a little about the real concerns of the safety implications of the measures that he has outlined?

Elliot Morley: On the safety implications and the days-at-sea regime, we recognise that there are potential problems. They have been addressed via pressure from the UK, in that there is 20 per cent. flexibility in terms of the months during which one can bank and borrow, to reflect bad weather, for example. In an extreme case whereby someone was tied up in port for the whole of February because of bad weather, under the arrangements the total number of February days can be added to the March days over a two-month period. In that way, the days can be accumulated. That gives people the flexibility to cope with weather conditions, and it takes some pressure off them.
	I cannot give details of the financial package today, because it is still being worked on. I spoke to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry this afternoon, and we are also talking to the regional development agencies. Of course, the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this issue, and he will meet industry leaders towards the end of the month. That work is therefore ongoing, and similar work is under way in parallel in the Scottish Parliament, in terms of the support package required by the Scottish industry.

Malcolm Savidge: The fishing industry still has a tragically high level of injury and loss of life. The Minister said that decommissioning will occur, but can the safety of vessels be taken into consideration in choosing which are retained and which are decommissioned?

Elliot Morley: We do not apply a general criterion in relation to the condition of vessels; it is entirely up to individual owners as to whether they want to submit their vessels for decommissioning. There is a legal standard that must be applied to any fishing vessel that is operating normally. Funds are available for modernisation and improvement through our financial instrument for fisheries guidance programme, which is open to all fishermen. I want information to be available in all fishing ports about the grants and so forth that are available to the industry as part of the recovery package, so that those who feel that they could benefit can take advantage of what is there.

Michael Weir: The Minister has mentioned aid. A circular letter that he sent Members this morning states:
	XWe will be considering further arrangements for decommissioning vessels for those who wish to leave the industry, and will make a further announcement as soon as possible. In addition the regional agencies will be ready to assist fisheries-dependent communities through the range of instruments available to them."
	Will the Treasury give the agencies any extra funds—particularly in Scotland, where the impact on many communities will be devastating?

Elliot Morley: The work is still under way, but various agencies and other bodies are provided with funds to help communities affected by restructuring, and the fishing industry has as much as a claim to support as, say, a large factory that has had to close. Funds are already available to deal with such eventualities; it is a question of the best support that can be given to the industry.

Lawrie Quinn: There is a history of such funds' not reaching communities at the quayside. That is regrettable, and offensive to those affected by restructuring. Will the Minister try hard to persuade his colleagues in other Departments that fishing communities must be targeted?

Elliot Morley: I appreciate that necessity. In the last round of English decommissioning, funds to help fishing communities were made available through what was then the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. Some of my hon. Friends felt at the time that the funds were spread too thinly and were not aimed at the appropriate targets as effectively as they should have been, but I assure my hon. Friend of my determination that that will not happen this time. I will discuss the application of the funds with the regional development agencies: I have already given them written warning that I shall want to do so.

Joan Humble: When he looks at the economic packages, will the Minister consider giving financial support to keep the industry alive, rather than just providing money enabling fishermen to decommission their vessels and get out of the industry? Fishermen are suffering cuts now so that they will be in a position to fish when—hopefully—stocks recover in the future.

Elliot Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we cannot ignore such issues as state aid rules. However, we are trying to take all these points into account in putting the package together.

Alex Salmond: There is plenty of scope in existing regulation and, for that matter, in the new Commission guidelines. But, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out, we want an aid package that sustains the industry. If the predominant part of the package is another decommissioning scheme it will be good news for the clearing banks, but few other people will benefit, and communities that depend on the fishing industry will suffer. There must be new money. Will there be new money from the Treasury, or will it be a case of reshuffling money that is already there?

Elliot Morley: I repeat that money is made available for circumstances such as these. It can be directed to communities and industries that need it. I appreciate the need for ongoing support, but whatever happens decommissioning will be an element, because when people simply are not viable and want a way out it is one of the answers. We cannot escape the issue of state aid, which makes provision of the kind of support at which some Members are hinting very difficult.

Andrew George: The Minister rightly says that decommissioning money can be provided, and that money is already available to help communities adjust to economic problems. What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who told my hon.—and beknighted—Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood)—[Hon. Members: XBenighted?"]—whom she told at Scottish Question Time that she was having discussions with the Treasury and considering additional packages? Is the Minister involved in those discussions?

Elliot Morley: I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend. As I have said, a range of issues are being considered. We are thinking about what we can offer, and how we can offer it. I cannot give details now because the work has not been completed, but an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Peter Duncan: Will the Minister confirm that the purpose of these schemes is to ensure that the industry is viable when stocks recover?
	The Minister mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think Scotland will have observed that its representative at Westminster is not present today, and that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not present either. Those two absences from such a crucial debate are very significant.

Elliot Morley: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that a range of important issues affecting a range of people in the industry must be addressed by a very busy Department. I do not think that that was a very fair comment.
	I can only say that, while I appreciate all the points that are being made, it should be recognised that existing funds are being allocated for exactly these circumstances.

Archy Kirkwood: The Minister's position is clear, and obviously work is being done to try and quantify the package, but there is great uncertainty in the fishing communities. Is it safe to assume that when the Prime Minister meets the industry later this month that work will have been completed, and the money will then be provided?

Elliot Morley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of Departments are outside my control—not least the Scottish Parliament, which is of course an autonomous body. They are doing their own work. The impact of the cuts does of course fall heavily on Scotland, and we should not pretend otherwise, but other Departments are involved and must be consulted. I can say, however, that I think the Prime Minister would expect the package to be ready by the time he meets the industry.

Malcolm Savidge: I am pleased that we are talking about communities as well as decommissioning. In the past, some decommissioning schemes have seemed quite properly to consider the concerns of owners, but without considering the problems of employees and ex-employees sufficiently.

Elliot Morley: That is, unfortunately, in the nature of the structure of the available packages, but we must look at employment prospects and also at the potential opportunities. It might be possible to retrain people and to support those who might like to use their skills in, for instance, the marine sector.

Anthony Steen: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I will, for the last time. I sense that Members want to continue this interchange, but I want to finish my speech.

Anthony Steen: I merely wanted to say that the Minister has done terribly well for one or two minutes, and I do not propose to intervene further.

Elliot Morley: I appreciate that.
	I think I have dealt with the main parts of the aid package.

Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I think I had better conclude.
	Above all, our guide in this problem is the key principle that fisheries management must be sustainable. That principle guided us when we put in place better management tools. Those tools are not everything that we could have wanted in the circumstances, and we will continue to argue for changes in the light of the representations that the industry has made to us. I emphasise that we have not achieved a final shape in the process of putting in place recovery measures, and that the process is not at an end.
	We recognise the impact of the proposals on the white fish sector, but the industry has many successful sectors. I believe that the industry has a good future, to which the Government are committed. This is the start of the process, not the end. We wish all sectors of the industry to be involved in the recovery programmes and to develop better measures for a profitable and sustainable future. I believe that we can achieve such a future, even though there is no doubt that there will be short-term pain in order to achieve the longer-term gain.

John Hayes: I beg to move, in line 14, at the end, to add the words:
	Xnotes the failure of European ministers to address adequately the issue of industrial fishing; believes that the measures agreed by the Fisheries Council will be ineffective in restoring white fish stocks; deplores the devastating and disproportionate impact that the policies embodied in these documents will have on the UK fishing industry; and calls on the Government to set out a clear strategy to conserve fish stocks, offer a sustainable future to the United Kingdom's fishing communities and to establish national and local control over the United Kingdom's fisheries."
	Many of our kingdom's fishermen face ruin. Fishing communities face devastation. That is the cruel light in which we must debate these matters in the House today. I have acknowledged before, and I do so again today, that there are hon. Members of all parties who are knowledgeable and concerned about fishing. The Minister is among them: he has a certain unlikely and curious charm, and that was evident in his speech. He was generous in dealing with interventions, and I hope that we can have a reasoned and civilised debate.
	We last debated this matter before Christmas. That debate was held in a good spirit, but we did not know the extent to which the EU would punish our fishermen and their families. There can be few in the Chamber who know more about this subject than the Minister, and we sent him to defend our national interest, protect vulnerable communities and contribute to the development of an effective policy to ensure adequate fish stocks into the future.
	Those were the vital tests that we set the Minister, more in hope than expectation. He failed those tests. He says that the outcome of the discussions is not a humiliation for the British Government, that the deal represents the best balance that could be achieved, and that the Government have attained all the objectives that they set. However, he simultaneously tells the House that the deal represents unfinished business, that it is a crude settlement and only the beginning of the process. He implies that there are more cuts to come. He says that the settlement is not the end of conservation, but just the beginning.
	The Minister's failures will not be paid for principally by him, but by the thousands of fishermen and their communities—perhaps up to 50,000 people in total, if one takes the wider communities involved into account—who will suffer and pay with their livelihoods.
	Fishermen and their representatives regard the December deal as so disappointing and damaging for three principal reasons. First, despite their economic consequences, the measures will not deliver stock recovery in the North sea. Secondly, the day-at-sea restrictions that will apply from February will push many vessels beyond economic viability but will not bring effective conservation. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) pointed out, the diversification of effort into derogated areas and small-mesh fisheries is an inevitable consequence of the scheme. A direct result will be that fishermen will struggle to fish in fewer and fewer areas, putting additional conservation pressures on those areas and on their stocks of fish.
	What will be the effects on the communities involved? They are still waiting to hear the details of the financial support that they will need to avoid ruin. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) was right to say that this deal is not about decommissioning money but about giving those communities some interim payment or ongoing support to enable them to maintain their businesses until such time as fish stocks recover and can be harvested.
	I make no projection about that, and no notional judgment about the figures but simply ask whether that money will be available. Will those communities be supported? If not, and if the Minister is right that the recovery programme will be successful—although I do not buy that argument—those stocks will be harvested by vessels of other nations. It is as simple as that. Britain will no longer have a fishing industry able to take advantage of them.

Elliot Morley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I should like to make two points. First, I really do not need him to tell me the views of the fishing industry, as I can talk to industry members directly. Secondly, as Opposition spokesman, it behoves him to say what his alternative would be. Would he have ignored the science involved? Would not the Opposition have taken action when it was projected that the cod stock could have fallen as low as 30,000 tonnes of spawning biomass? I remind him that that figure fell to 28,000 tonnes when the stock off the Grand Banks collapsed.
	I would also be very interested to know how the hon. Gentleman claims to be a great advocate of financial support, coming from a party committed to cutting public expenditure by 20 per cent.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to me more carefully. I simply asked a question. I am not in Government. I do not have the Chancellor's ear. I do not have the power to give this lifeline to the fishing industry. I asked the Minister what he intended to do about it, as did hon. Members from all parties during his speech. Hon. Members from his side asked about the short-term support and payments he would give.
	What the hon. Gentleman said about conservation was weak, coming from a man who knows so much about the subject. Is he really suggesting that the only way to conserve fish stocks—the only way to put in place a recovery programme—is through days at sea? He knows that that is not true, and it has never been accepted as true by either party or by him as Minister. There are many conservation policies. The Government could have implemented many fish recovery policies as part of the programme.
	As I shall explain, the Minister had the opportunity to pursue those avenues in the European Fisheries Council. He has not chosen to do so. He has ended up with a days-at-sea policy. That is a matter of judgment and choice, a choice that he and other Ministers made, but he knows that it is not the only option. He is not being entirely straightforward in suggesting that it is.

Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware how delighted both I and the Southend fishing industry have been to read the terms of the Opposition's amendment, and in particular the clear indication that the Conservative party would want to re-establish national control over UK fishing? We are thrilled with this proposal. I hope that he will be able to find time in his speech to explain how Parliament could do that.

John Hayes: Even my hon. Friend would find it hard to trump me on those matters. I shall be happy to say more about that during my speech.
	Let us first talk about the communities that will be so badly affected. The Minister said that he would speak directly to the fishermen and their organisations. I understand that they have been promised a meeting with the Prime Minister, because it is clear that the Prime Minister understands the political, electoral and other effects that these matters may have on his fortunes. Let us hope that they have more success with the Prime Minister than we did when we asked him to raise them at Copenhagen.
	I have a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister written by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The House will know what a strong stand my right hon. Friend has taken on these matters. He has visited the fishermen. He has gone to the communities. He has had many discussions with them, and he invited the Prime Minister to raise these matters in Copenhagen when European leaders came together.
	That would have been an ideal opportunity for the Prime Minister to take a personal lead. When we last debated the issue the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), with me and other hon. Members, asked the Prime Minister to do precisely that. We said that he should take the matter in hand at an early stage and not come in at the last minute, as he had to do, to try to prop up the Minister when he could not do a decent deal for us. He was invited to take that personal lead and raise the matter in Copenhagen. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote:
	XYou had an opportunity at Copenhagen this week to make it clear there is no justification for these proposals"
	that will damage our fisherman's interests.
	The Prime Minister replied:
	XI believe to raise the issue at the European Council would be a mistake."
	That was the level of priority that the Prime Minister gave to this matter and the livelihood of these people. We hope that, when he meets the fishermen, he will be able to offer them a little more hope, a rather more positive perspective, a little more generosity and a little more empathy than he showed on that occasion.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the Conservative spokesman for giving way on the subject of leadership. I notice that he says that it is important that the Government should have raised such matters at the Copenhagen summit—the Scottish National party first called for that—but can he tell the House how many times before that summit meeting the leader of the Conservative party raised fishing during Prime Minister's Question Time? Will he confirm that it was none?

John Hayes: That is a cheap point, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He also knows that I would be first to acknowledge that even the SNP, firing grapeshot as it does—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be for the convenience of those who are trying to record proceedings and in conformity with normal courtesies if he would address his remarks to the Chair?

John Hayes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder.
	Even the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who speaks on behalf of the SNP, will understand that when his party fires grapeshot, it will occasionally hit the target. SNP Members did so when they called for the Prime Minister to take a lead, and he failed to do so.
	Fifteen-day tie-ups mean that many boats will be tied up for ever. Fishermen will be driven out of business, unable to meet their costs or feed their families. If fishing effort is reduced by 15-day tie-ups, there is no reduction in fishermen's mortgage payments or the cost of feeding their families, let alone the overheads faced by their businesses. At least 900 vessels are likely to be affected. Hon. Members are right to emphasise the fact that the effect is particularly profound on the Scottish east coast, where fishing is the principal source of employment in many communities.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree with the estimate that 20,000 jobs will be lost in the Scottish fishing fleet? Will he explain why France, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Holland did relatively well in the December talks compared with the British fleet, which was sold down the river?

John Hayes: I will answer—mindful of the need to address the Chair—in two parts. First, those countries did relatively well because their Ministers care more about fishing than ours do. Their Ministers and Prime Ministers place high priority on such matters and our Government simply do not. That is the truth of the matter.

Elliot Morley: I do not want inaccuracies to be recorded. Denmark was severely affected by the changes because it had the second biggest cod quota after the United Kingdom. Those management methods affect the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France and Ireland to varying degrees, depending on their fishing practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that some members have got better deals; things depended on the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman can find one member state that received quota against the scientific advice, I shall be very interested in hearing about it. The Prime Minister raised fishing at the margins of the Copenhagen summit meeting.

John Hayes: I am not sure whether the Minister's intervention was intended to relate to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I shall come to the point about job losses in responding to my hon. Friend's original intervention. With the typical understatement and moderation for which he is well known in Essex and the House, he underestimated the effect of the changes. Estimates suggest that up to 40,000 people could be affected. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan quoted precisely that figure, although he now looks bewildered, when we debated fishing in November. If he checks the record, he will find out. If account is taken of the other industries and people affected—those who work in harbours, in boat building or repairing businesses or in the wider fishing economy—the number is much greater than 20,000. I suspect that it is more than 40,000, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to trump me on that.

Alex Salmond: The overall figure for fishing industry dependent employment is 44,000. Obviously, not all those people are employed in the white fish sector, but none the less, thousands of jobs will be lost, and the effect will be heavily concentrated in Shetland and a few east coast ports. People in those areas desperately want to hear what will be done to protect their livelihoods.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's estimate is right: the figure is 44,000. To amplify his point, it is important to emphasise that the job losses will be concentrated. In some communities, the fishing industry accounts for a significant proportion of total employment and there are knock-on effects for families and the wider economy.
	A large number of vessels are affected, yet the Minister and the Government do not appear to be taking the industry seriously enough, despite landings in 2001 to the value of #574.4 million, a figure revealed through a parliamentary question.
	The Government's half-cocked and half-hearted defence has been mounted on conservation. In meetings with me, fishermen's organisations have pointed out a number of flaws. Contrary to the Minister's assertions that we are making gradual progress on minimum landing sizes, they have been reduced for certain species. The opposite should happen: the minimum landing size should be edged upwards, with corresponding escape opening areas. We know why that issue is so contentious for many who debate such matters in Europe: the taste in southern Europe for baby fish. We should not be frightened of acknowledging that fact; it is well known, widely understood and should be stated in this place.
	Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, we should not be frightened of raising the issue of the quota system, which has caused the dumping of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of prime fish, dead, back into the sea. The quota system was never designed to aid conservation or fish recovery; it is all about EU integration.
	As other hon. Members have said, the impact of the deal is mainly on vessels that use large-mesh nets of more than 100 mm. It thus encourages vessels to move to smaller-mesh nets—for example, the prawn fishery uses 80 mm—or smaller-mesh areas such as the southern North sea where 80 mm is permitted for white fish, to escape the impact of day-at-sea restrictions.
	The Minister asked me to suggest an alternative and I shall speak more about what could be done, but he has to answer the point that day-at-sea restrictions are the most likely of all the conservation options to deliver precisely that movement of effort from one part of our coast to another—from one fishing area to another.

Alan Campbell: For quite some time, there has been concern about diversion of effort in coastal areas that are reliant on prawn fishing, but can the hon. Gentleman give the House an estimate of whether the pressure would have been greater had the Council gone for a cut in white fish of between 80 and 100 per cent?

John Hayes: I shall deal with that matter in some detail later on. The Government claim that we achieved some sort of victory because we edged up the Commission's original proposal, but it was a pyrrhic victory. The arguments are hollow, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I am glad that he at least acknowledges that the displacement factors that I described are true. I am sure that he will also acknowledge that they will be exacerbated by the current arrangements.

Anthony Steen: We are exploring alternatives to quotas. Earlier, I suggested to the Minister that there should be an auction of quota limits for all fish. The Minister was helpful, as he normally is, but I am sure that my hon. Friend can be even more helpful. Has he considered the concept of such an auction?

John Hayes: As my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee studied those matters. Indeed, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will recall that, when I was a member of the Committee, we enjoyed many an evening discussing Europe and the United Kingdom and looked closely at issues such as the one raised by my hon. Friend. Such matters are worthy of consideration and further study—I put it no stronger than that—and he is right to raise them. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to deal with them when he sums up.
	The open areas for the saithe fishery mean that larger vessels, in order to remain viable, will direct their effort to those fishing grounds that are not subject to effort control. Part of the saithe designated area appears to overlap with the 2001 cod area and other fishing vessels will undoubtedly take advantage of that north-east zone. Many believe that the sector received special treatment to please the French, as, two years ago, stocks were said to be in a perilous state. Perhaps that is another example of unfinished business. The Minister may speak of unfinished business; I speak of the finish of the businesses of fishermen around our coast in Scotland and England. That is the real story: the finish of our industry, our businesses, our fishermen.
	The proposals that the Minister has now agreed are peppered with anomalies and inconsistencies. He will know of the anomalies in respect of the north channel, which is an important area. As Members who represent Scottish constituencies will know, many boats going out of the Clyde, some Ulster boats and some English boats fish extensively in the north channel. In the north-west Scotland zone, there are restrictions on carrying a 150 mm net on board. Cod stocks will not be replenished, as fishermen will be guilty if they carry their net across that zone. I regard that anomaly as a nonsense; it is certainly impossible to enforce or police.
	Fishermen will not be guilty, however, if they travel without their net, pick it up in Norway, and then fish. The truth is that fishermen will not just be penalised for catching fish but for the potential to catch fish while they cross one of these zones. That is a nightmare, and it is foolish. The Minister must know that that is not practical or enforceable. Vessels operating out of ports on the east coast of England that fish in their traditional grounds in the North sea will be discriminated against because of their longer steaming time. No allowance is made for geography. The UK fleet has been uniquely disadvantaged by the deal, and the social and economic consequences will be severe.
	Perhaps the greatest scandal of all, which has been highlighted in several interventions, is the failure of European Ministers adequately to address the continuing nightmare of industrial fishing, practised principally by Denmark and Norway.

Peter Duncan: Has my hon. Friend considered the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister about the discrimination against long liners who are given some deal in Europe? There is total ignorance, however, about the scandal of the Danish boats creating soup from the North sea bed, which is totally unsustainable in terms of by-catch?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters and defends the interests of his fishermen vigorously, will understand that there are two aspects to this. He is right about the effect on the food chain, which is profound. He is also aware of the considerable by-catch. The Minister suggested today that there is scientific evidence to support the claim that there is very little white fish by-catch from industrial fishing. As has been stated several times, however, two Danish boats were prosecuted—I think that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned a figure of about 65,000 tonnes out of 100,000 tonnes yearly. In practice, the one-month penalty was served over the Christmas and new year period.
	The substantial by-catch from industrial fishing is incompatible with a cod recovery programme in the North sea. The Minister must know that: the whole House and fishermen and their representative organisations and their communities certainly know it well. I suspect that the Danes and the Norwegians know it, too. The Minister knows about the destruction of the food source by industrial fishing, as he secured a closure around the Isle of May and the firth of Forth for three years, and he knows that when he did so it was extended because of the birdlife. Fish stocks recovered. He knows very well that industrial fishing is a major issue. He has taken an honourable position on that point, but he has failed to do anything about it.

Elliot Morley: I have pointed out what I have done.

John Hayes: The Minister says that he has pointed out what he has done, but he describes the prawn restrictions as negligible and as of no consequence, because prawn fishermen are allowed to fish for 25 days a month. However, industrial fishermen will be allowed to fish for 23 days a month, and he leads us to believe that that is a significant step forward and real progress. Presumably, that is what he has done.
	How did this sorry situation come about? I come to the real charge that I make of the Minister. The situation came about because of the hesitation, prevarication and poor negotiating skills of our Government. He will know that the bullying and arm twisting of the EU—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but I have received a report that I hope he will investigate. I will not go into fine detail now, but I have a report that suggests that a senior official abused members of the UK delegation. They were told that they were wasting their time and that a deal had been done before they had even arrived at the meeting. I will be prepared to give him full details after the debate, so I hope that he will look into the matter.

Elliot Morley: I will give the hon. Gentleman the full details now. That is utter nonsense. I do not know where he gets such things from. Some people, including Richard Lochhead from the Scottish Parliament, were hanging round the bars at Brussels, and that may explain how such rumours get running. However, this one is complete and utter rubbish.

John Hayes: Before the Minister says that things are rubbish, he should consider the full details. I will furnish him with them out of the context of the debate. He will then find that he may want, at the very least, to consider them carefully to see whether there is any truth in them.
	It is certainly not rubbish to say that the Council of Ministers sent signals that there was no prospect of agreement on the Commission's proposals for the cod and hake recovery programme based on limits of time at sea. The Minister will know that that happened twice last year—in June and November. Had the Government worked with the other states who share a common interest in these matters, we could have done a very different deal. He knows very well that a conservation arrangement or a recovery programme could have been arranged around capacity reduction, closed areas and technical measures that excluded or, at least, limited the effort-control measures that we now face with such trepidation.

Angus Robertson: On the point about ministerial representation at Council of Ministers meetings, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the concern in Scotland at the quality of representation by the Scottish Minister responsible for fisheries. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ross Finnie has bothered to attend only 26 per cent. of agricultural and fisheries meetings since he took responsibility for these issues in the Scottish Executive? He was not even recorded as being present at seven of the 10 meetings to which he turned up. Is that not perhaps a reflection of the quality of representation that we have in Scotland from a Liberal Democrat Minister for fishing?

John Hayes: Once again, I suspect that it reflects the priority that the Government attach to fishing, which is not high on their agenda. When these matters are debated in Europe, we give most ground on fishing so as to gain ground on other issues. We all celebrate and are aware of the benefits of the European Union, and we may hear more about them in the debate. The fishing industry, however, has certainly not benefited from the negotiations.
	Had the Minister taken the steps that he could have taken and seized the opportunity to bring together a coalition that would have agreed a very different recovery programme, I suspect that we would not be in this position. As we have already heard, the Commission seized on our failure to follow through the signals that were sent that it might be prepared to opt for something that would have been more agreeable to us and came out with the ludicrous proposals for seven days at sea each month. The Minister now asks us to accept that he did a good job by raising the proposed seven days to nine. He got us only two days extra; the Prime Minister, at the eleventh hour, having refused to raise the matter any earlier, stepped in and upped the nine days to 15 days at sea a month. The Minister acknowledged that the Prime Minister helped—I think that he made a passing reference to the assistance that the Prime Minister gave him.
	What else did the Minister fail to secure, despite claiming that this was not a humiliation but a victory, a triumph, a real step forward and real progress? There is no redress over previous upgrades—the Spanish have banked their port and fleet upgrades and bolted the door behind them. They still have the most modern vessels and best facilities.
	There is no urgent revision of the method for scientific monitoring. There is a pledge that they will consider it at some time in the future, but it remains distant from people's communities and experience. As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, there must be a partnership between fishermen and scientists drawing together all available expertise to deliver science that is trusted and enforceable.
	No binding agreement was reached on the reform of scientific method in line with experiences elsewhere, such as landing all catch rather than discards. Good practice proposals seem to be the best that the Minister can come up with.
	Why was industrial fishing not more severely restricted?
	What was achieved by the red tape, regulation and bureaucracy that fishermen regularly face as they go about their business?
	Will there be new guidelines for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials who work at ports?
	Under the agreement, the derogation of the 12-mile limit has only been extended. If the 12-mile limit is so important to the Minister, why has it not been made a permanent arrangement? He said that some EU rule or convention meant that things were not done in that way. However, that is what we need and deserve.
	The common fisheries policy has never delivered a viable fishing industry or the maintenance of fish stocks. Ironically, it has punished fishermen and fish simultaneously. In Britain, the fishing industry has steadily eroded. Places around our coast, once proud to be known as fishing towns and villages, have seen fishing reduced to a cottage industry. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan reminded us, up to 40,000 people owe their employment to the Scottish fishing industry.
	The figures are stark but worthy of examination. In 1980, there were 23,309 fishermen; by 2000, there were 15,121, and the figure is still falling. The CFP can never be made to work in the interests of British fishing, partly because fishing is given too low a priority by our Government, who have been complicit in a Commission-led plan to tie up boats. Other Governments fight for their fishing industry—ours do not.

Peter Duncan: Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that Ministers say that scientific back-up is important, but year after year it comes down to political barter. Far from being at the heart of Europe, the UK always ends up at the back and Scottish fishermen get it in the neck every time.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said, we have been round this course many times. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is a stalwart in these matters, knows it, as does the Minister, who has been stuck in this job for a very long time and has been involved in many of these debates.
	We have been round the course too often. The CFP cannot be reformed to work in Britain's interests. All those who look at these matters objectively know that the CFP is intrinsically flawed. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, it is rotten at its core. Those naive enough to maintain faith in the CFP—mainly those on the Liberal and Labour Benches—must surely realise that this aspect of the European dream has come to an end.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: No, I want to draw my remarks to a close.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I want to draw my remarks to a close so that other right hon. and hon. Members can speak in the debate.
	There is no better example of the contemptible nature of EU fishing politics than the sorry saga of quota hopping—the DEFRA report came out on 18 December; surprise, surprise, in the Christmas holiday—in respect of which Mr. Blair immediately dropped the Amsterdam negotiating veto of John Major unless the matter was resolved and then merely secured an exchange of letters on landing fish in one place and driving them by truck to another. The truth is that only by returning UK fishing to the control of the British people through their sovereign Parliament will a coherent strategy for the industry emerge. National control, with the local involvement of fishermen at every stage of policy development, is no longer an option; it is an imperative.
	Let me be crystal clear on that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) invited me to be. I pledge that an incoming Conservative Government will restore national control of our fisheries. We fully understand the constitutional and political implications of that, and will take the necessary legislative steps to achieve it.

Elliot Morley: How?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) knows how EU treaties have force of law in the House and what I mean by that pledge, as does the Minister, so there is no point in him crying out, XHow?" The difference between our parties is that we will do that and the Government will not.
	Serious questions remain for the Minister to answer. Did the Commission use the most recent data, or are the suggestions that cod are still around but have moved north for climatic reasons accurate? Will the Government veto the convention proposal that there should be an integrated maritime agency to cover a maritime approach to such matters and to monitor fish? Does he agree with the statistic offered by the Commission that 28,000 fishermen will lose their jobs, and, if so, how many of those will be British? What extra moneys have been set aside for decommissioning, given the proviso that an extra 20 per cent. may be on offer above the usual rate?
	Can the Minister clarify what final decision has been made on how the Commission will judge relative stability in respect of changes in national catches over time? Does Spain gain access in the North sea under the interpretation of historic access, or are its accession rights upheld? Will he assure the House that cuts will be a total percentage of all fleets rather than those fishing in home waters? Most of all, do the Government have any long-term projected plans for rebuilding the fleet after the crisis is over? Instead of decommissioning, they could offer support to allow the fleet to be maintained so that it can harvest the stocks once they have recovered. Does he concede that other Community vessels will move in?
	Fishermen and their representatives have come to fear that the December betrayal is part of a long-term plan within the Commission and other countries to break up the established North sea fishing fleet. A determined island race with a proud maritime history will look to the Government's record on fishing with an unhappy mix of derision and despair. The Minister will be aware of the anger in Scotland and the English North sea ports at the horrendous injustices inflicted on them and other parts of the United Kingdom. They accuse him of leaving them in total despair after his debriefing meeting with them on 20 December following the Council of Ministers.
	Fishing is about more than cold statistics and dry debating points. It is about more even than jobs. It is about lives, families and communities. Greater still, however, it is about culture, identity and a way of life that reaches across generations, which challenges and inspires. In the words of Eliot:
	XThe river is within us, the sea is all about us:
	The sea is the land's edge also,
	The sea has many voices, Many gods and many voices . . .
	Pray for those who were in ships, and
	Ended the voyage on the sand, in the sea's lips
	Or in the dark throat which will not reject them".
	We are an island maritime race. Just as the CFP epitomises the shoddy, shabby, shady politics of the EU, so fishermen and their families embody the spirit of our nation. We should pray for them, as Eliot implored, but with equal faith we must work for them, argue for them and fight for them. All hon. Members should support the amendment because our battle to save the fishing industry is at the very heart of our battle to save our nation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I ought to say that in a debate that can occupy 224 minutes, 103 of those minutes have now been taken by two Front-Bench speakers—albeit that they were generous with interventions. At least 10 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in the time remaining. If they each voluntarily impose a limit of 10 minutes on themselves, we may accommodate every hon. Member who wishes to participate.

Frank Doran: This is the second time in succession that I have followed the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in a fisheries debate. His presentation is becoming interesting—quite Churchillian in aspiration, although certainly not in content. Hearing the hon. Gentleman's espousal of Tory party policy towards the common fisheries policy gives new meaning to one of Churchill's famous phrases,
	Xwe shall fight on the beaches".
	Churchill was a historian. The hon. Gentleman needs to mug up on his history. He made a major point about the priority that the present Government attach to the fishing industry when for the last Conservative Government there was no lower priority than the fishing industry.
	I welcome the reforms outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister and I am pleased that despite the industry's difficulties, those measures were welcomed also by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—particularly the protection of the six and 12-mile limits, success with preserving the Shetland box, relative stability and the Hague preference. In these difficult times, all are extremely important.
	My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that issues for the Scottish fleet will be the preserve of the Scottish Executive. It is important to emphasise the significance of the Scottish fleet not just to Scotland but to the whole UK fishing industry. The bulk of the white fish caught in the UK is landed in north-east Scotland, which is crucial to the whole industry. If we are forced to rely on imports, that will have serious consequences not just for the industry but for the consumer.
	The industry faces dark times. One of the difficulties of making any assessment—or, indeed, any contribution to the debate—lies in calculating how long the problems will be with us. The industry is familiar with the huge uncertainty that is the direct result of the European Union's decision. It is still a mystery to me that any industry can survive when the availability of its raw product is determined the week before the financial year begins. The sooner a multi-angled approach is taken, the better.
	It is clear why the industry is concerned and fishermen are genuinely afraid for their future. One major problem is the availability of fish. The severe reductions in the total allowable catch seen this year emphasise the severity of the situation. Is my hon. Friend the Minister able to make an assessment of how long the current regime is likely to last? Now that the new arrangements are in place, what incentive is there for the European Commission and other member states to change them? The UK has come out of the negotiations worse than any other country. It would helpful to know how my hon. Friend sees the process moving forward.
	Another major concern is the particular form of the control, which is effectively a tie-up. The industry faces the removal of half its working time and probably half its income. No matter how extensive and effective decommissioning may be, it will not help the boats that are still fishing, because they will be tied up and unable to catch fish. Everyone will be seriously affected. I accept that an egalitarian approach would spread the misery across the industry, but where is the hope for those who want to remain in the industry? I should be grateful if the Minister would address that.
	There is a particular problem with the large white-fish vessels in the North sea. They will be subject to the same regime and a 15-day tie-up, but they are the vessels in which most investment is made, as regards quality, size and, in many cases, the acquisition of additional quota. Many of them need at least 300 days at sea just to break even and to continue to be able to pay the mortgage to the bank. Is any particular emphasis or assistance likely to be targeted on them?
	I accept that the details of the scheme have to be worked out, but the industry faces other costs. From my discussions with the Minister, I know that the Department will look at having scientists on board vessels, although I accept that there are difficulties with that. Vessel operators have to meet other costs such as harbour dues and light dues. Such costs are relatively small, but every little bit of assistance helps. I should be grateful if that could be looked at.
	As anyone who has listened to these debates and my contributions over the past few years will be aware, my major concern is the fish processing industry, where the bulk of jobs in my constituency are. I have heard it said that fish processors should not have too many problems because the bulk of fish that is processed is imported. That is not the case in the north of Scotland—40 per cent. of such fish is imported, but 60 per cent. is dependent on the North sea catch. In my own area, many processors have a particular requirement for small haddock, which cannot easily be imported. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is taken into account.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is talking a great deal of sense. However, I clearly remember that he has been quoted as saying that the processors could depend on imported fish. Was he again misquoted before Christmas?

Frank Doran: When the hon. Gentleman asks such questions he usually pulls a newspaper clipping out to prove me wrong, so I had better be careful about what I say. I know that the industry has become much more reliant on imports—I have certainly said that in the past—but I have always acknowledged the importance of locally caught fish. I am simply trying to emphasise that point—and I know that the situation is exactly the same in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	The fish processing industry is extremely important. According to the industry itself, there are some 200 fish processing companies left in Scotland employing about 10,000 people in direct jobs; there are another 2.5 jobs in the wider community for every job in the industry. There has been a considerable contraction since 1995, with the loss of about 150 companies. The industry has faced very difficult times recently, mainly in coming to terms with new requirements such as new water charges and the introduction of European hygiene regulations. One of the industry's main fears is that if there is further contraction—most people accept that that is almost inevitable—that that part of it that has invested most heavily in new equipment, and in coming up to scratch and providing the necessary quality of service would be least able to cope with the new pressures. I hope that when plans for support are drawn up, that will be taken into account.
	There are other ways in which the industry could be helped. For example, the industry pays about #3 million by levy to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. That is an extremely important body, but the levy is a considerable drain on resources.
	With reference to processors, will the Minister confirm that they will be invited to the meeting with the Prime Minister and will be part of the discussions on the future of the industry? It is essential that they are taken fully into account in all considerations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who could not stay for the debate, raised an important point in her intervention. In the past, most of the help directed to the industry has been directed to vessel owners through the decommissioning scheme. She rightly recalled the decommissioning that took place in the late 1970s. Substantial sums were paid to the fishing industry to decommission the fleet in the immediate aftermath of the Icelandic cod war. At the same time, many hundreds—probably thousands—of men lost their jobs or were disadvantaged in other respects because of the consequences of the cod war. It is only in the past two or three years that those men have been compensated. They were completely ignored in the 1970s and subsequently when their case was presented.
	Because of the particular nature of employment in the sea fishing industry, fishermen tend to have no contracts of employment. They are share fishermen or, in the case of my constituency, they worked in a pool system, with no direct employer. In 10 years' time, I do not want us to have to cope with the consequences of the fishermen who may be made redundant in the downturn that we all anticipate. I hope that the nature of their employment will be taken into account in compensation packages or schemes to support them.
	A particular concern of mine relates to the fact that in the north-east of Scotland, when times have been difficult in the fishing industry, there have always been opportunities for fishermen in the oil industry. They have been able to get jobs on stand-by vessels or supply vessels and in some other parts of the merchant navy. Those opportunities are receding, not just because of the downturn in the oil industry—the price is high and the North sea industry seems to be suffering a little at present—but for other reasons.
	For some reason that I find it difficult to understand, the work permit system that operates onshore does not apply in the offshore oil and gas industry or in most of our inshore shipping. For example, the new ferry from Rosyth to Zeebrugge operates under a British flag, but with foreign sailors. In the shipping industry that services the oil industry in particular, most of the employment is now going to what we might call cheap foreign labour. There are substantial numbers of Filipino and growing numbers of Ukranian and Polish nationals. I ask the Minister to take into account the need for those job opportunities to be made available, which is not the case at present. I will be lobbying the Minister responsible for such matters for the extension of the work permit scheme to the offshore industry and to certain other shipping areas within our territorial waters. If we are to face difficulties in the industry, it is important that the work force—the day-to-day fishermen who may not own a fishing boat but are vital to the industry—are taken fully into consideration.

Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on his considered remarks in this debate, as in other debates on such an important subject. I hope that the Minister will take on board the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point about the parlous state of share fishermen who are joint venturers in fishing ventures. In my constituency, the vast majority of fishermen are engaged in that way and will face particular difficulty if the significant decline that is predicted in many regions occurs. Bearing in mind your very appropriate strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will do my best to contain my remarks from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to 15 minutes plus any injury time incurred through interventions.
	As I said earlier, I very much value the graciousness of the Minister, in this debate in particular, in taking the number of interventions that he does. Of course, that takes up some time, but, because he answers the questions raised in the interventions, a great deal of extremely useful debate is achieved by that method. I hope that, in future fishing debates, the Minister will not feel that he needs to curtail his speech, because many hon. Members consider this issue very deeply and come here with very sincere interests in the subject, and they value the way in which the Minister responds to the debate.
	The Council dealt with two main issues in December. The first was the annual quota settlement; the second was the very important 20-year review of the common fisheries policy, which was clearly critical. The quota settlement was the issue that drew the publicity at the Council meeting. The problem with the blunderbuss approach of quota settlements and the crude use of days at sea is that they provide a stick without a carrot for the industry—a straitjacket without hope. As I said earlier, the approach treats fishermen as perpetrators rather than partners. We believe that they should be seen as partners in the future management of fishing stocks. There has clearly been a change in culture over the last five to 10 years in the way in which the industry approaches this issue, and it has come forward with proposals to contain and constrain its own activities by a number of measures that are certainly more sophisticated than the blunderbuss approach of quotas and days at sea. I believe that those measures should be very much part of the management regime of future stocks around our coasts.
	My Liberal Democrat colleague, the fisheries Minister in the Scottish Executive, described the outcome as inequitable, unfair and crude, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said earlier. Having looked at it in detail, I think that my colleague was pulling his punches. It was a disaster for many areas, and it was a great disappointment that the more sophisticated approach that I have tried to describe could not have been used in a better way.
	I listened carefully to the response from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It was the customary brass neck ritual rant—

Archy Kirkwood: Followed by an exit.

Andrew George: Indeed. We are used to such responses to these debates. The faces change, but the ritual rant never seems to. I noticed that the Minister came to the last debate with a large pile of Christmas cards. I was judging the interest and importance of the speeches by the number of cards that he signed during them. I think that he signed most of them during the speech from the Conservative Front Bench. On this occasion, he and his staff probably had ample time to revise for and complete the psychometric tests that they are undertaking at the moment.
	I referred to the Conservatives' brass neck because, if it were so apparent that the common fisheries policy needed to be revised in the way that they describe—they wish to repatriate it, as they say—why did they not do that during the 18 years of Conservative rule? Why was it never put on the agenda during that time? Why did it suddenly became apparent to them that they should have pursued that policy only on the day after the 1997 general election? We are invited to believe that they would have done more and done better, and that the leader of the Conservative Opposition would apparently have done more and intervened a great deal more than the Prime Minister has done. I have to say that the Conservatives appear to be suffering from the Xbenefit of hindsight" disease when looking at this matter.
	When the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) pointed out in an intervention that the Leader of the Opposition had not raised fishing in Prime Minister's questions, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that that was a cheap remark. However, if fishing were the priority that those on the Conservative Front Bench claim it is, he would have raised it. The Conservatives still need to explain why, according to records made available under their 30-day rule—[Hon. Members: X30-year rule."] Perhaps we should have 30-day rules. According to information released under the 30-year rule, it is clear that the Conservative Cabinet felt that fishermen's livelihoods were expendable when we were negotiating a future role in the common fisheries policy.
	On the common fisheries policy, some significant agreements were made in respect of six and 12-mile limits and, as I understand it, increased unilateral powers to introduce conservation and management measures. I am looking forward to seeing such measures and I hope that the Minister will expand on that matter. Agreement was also reached on the continuation of relative stabilities, the Hague preference and multi-annual quotas. Five years ago, when I first suggested the introduction of multi-annual quotas to avoid the eleventh-hour brinkmanship that occurs at the end of each year and often continues two weeks into the next one, the proposal met widespread derision. I do not know whether I can claim credit for it—perhaps others were making the same suggestion—but I am pleased to see that it has been agreed to, as it ensures that fishermen and their financial backers can plan for the future, certainly in the medium term. The regional advisory councils are another especially important development, but I shall return to them in a moment.
	The Minister is right that the removal of subsidies for construction and modernisation, while limited grants for modernisation will continue, is a step forward. As he said, those subsidies should have been stopped immediately, but it is important for them to be phased out as quickly as possible.
	I want to focus on two further issues. The Minister believes that there is a need for further research on industrial fishing. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I and other hon. Members have made it clear that we believe that sufficient information is already available. The illegal catches found on board two Danish vessels shortly before Christmas demonstrate the problem that we face. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence from fisherman to suggest that it would be impossible for such industrial fishing vessels to operate in areas where they have been seen to be operating without taking a very significant by-catch of white and other illegal fish.
	It is therefore important that the Minister does not simply wait for further research, which is merely a delaying tactic on an issue that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. The reason why the industry feels particularly cynical about the issue is that, even though mesh sizes as small as 16 mm are used by those in the industrial sector, they are given 23 days at sea, while those with much larger mesh sizes have the fewest days at sea available to them. Surely, that is a contradiction.
	Those in the industry will need a lot of persuasion that the regional advisory councils will provide an opportunity for them to work in partnership in its future management. I hope that the Minister and his Department will concentrate a great deal of attention, time and resources on ensuring that the councils work. The industry is on the verge of becoming cynical. It doubts whether the advisory councils will have teeth and fears that they will be expensive, large and pointless talking shops. The Government must encourage the industry to make policy, not advisory proposals, for fast implementation.
	There are many fertile spawning grounds around the coast that need protection. The Trevose ground, which is off the coast of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), is one of the most fertile and productive spawning grounds in the UK. Juvenile spawning stock of cod, sole, pollock, whiting and haddock can be found there, especially from this time of year. It is worrying that the area is not protected.
	I recently met Paul Trebilcock, general secretary of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. The organisation has devised responsible proposals for closing two areas around the Trevose grounds between 1 February and the end of April. It is vital that the Under-Secretary accepts such a responsible and appropriate proposal for closing down grounds at a time of year when they are often plundered by many countries.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to Trevose. It vividly demonstrates his central point that some people in the industry are doing their utmost to act as partners in conservation. Language is therefore important. The more people treat those in the industry as genuine partners, not potential perpetrators of steps to remove conservation measures, the more likely our chances of success.

Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising that. The industry will present the proposal that I mentioned as soon as possible, before the establishment of the advisory councils, which should be set up as quickly as possible. The test for the Under-Secretary is the speed with which the advisory councils can implement the proposal. There is no justifiable argument against it, and it should have been implemented years ago. It should now be effected as quickly as possible.
	If the advisory councils were regional management committees with genuine power to make decisions and implement them, they would be able to effect the proposal quickly. However, they are advisory councils and we need a mechanism to ensure that good and sensible proposals have a fast track to the Council of Ministers so that decisions are not only made but acted upon quickly.
	Let us consider dolphins and the cetacean by-catch. I know that the Under-Secretary is worried and frustrated by the many dolphins that have been washed up as strandlings on the beaches in my part of the world. Bass pair trawlers are likely to be one of the main culprits, and the Department was planning to trial new separator grids this year. That is welcome, but I believe that the Under-Secretary's efforts have been frustrated by an accident. Many people in Cornwall, including those in the industry, are also upset by strandlings. Those in the industry believe that they are being blamed for them, when they are innocent.

Elliot Morley: I am deeply frustrated by the delay in the trials. The matter is beyond our control because the vessel is damaged. However, on the point about strandlings in Cornwall in the past month, no British pair trawlers have been operating in the vicinity. That shows that there is a European Union problem, and we are therefore pressing the matter. The CFP regulations acknowledged that we must deal with cetacean by-catch and devise a strategy to eliminate it.

Andrew George: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's remarks. The majority of pair trawlers are French and he is right to say that we must look to a European Union solution to the problem. However, I shall press him further on that important issue.
	My time is up and I have taken a certain amount of injury time, but I want to raise one final issue—the need for a recovery programme. The Minister said that there is of course money for decommissioning, and that it will be made available to assist the industry. Such money will be essential for the North sea. Government money is available to assist those communities facing structural decline, but it is clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland is discussing with her Treasury colleagues other ways of assisting the industry. It is important that we look seriously at a recovery programme and some transitional aid, rather than managed decline.
	Three years ago, the Minister agreed with the Agriculture Committee that what we need is a clear British fishing policy to help direct the industry, and to help provide a clear guideline on the way forward. The Department has still not responded to that, and is still not producing the industry policy that we need. The setting up of the regional advisory councils will provide the framework that the industry requires to direct its future.
	I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat motion, which the Minister might even have been tempted to support, was not selected. It addresses many of the issues arising from the Council meeting in December, and I hope that the Minister takes heed of the issues that have been raised.

Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on a major success in these negotiations. I do so with a certain amount of grovelling servility, in that I am trying to use a nice cop, nasty cop routine within the confines of a single speech. It is certainly true that he was very effective in resisting what some people, including me, feared would be the consequences of renewing the common fisheries policy. To us, there seemed to be a threat of fishing up to the beaches, a threat to relative stability, a threat to ending The Hague preference, and a threat of a European fleet. All that has been averted, and in that regard I join in the congratulations that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations offered him.
	However, the CFP has been extended, and we have to accept the fact that these cuts are directly attributable to the failures of the CFP. It is not a conservation policy; it has always been essentially political. The programme, which was foolishly accepted by a Conservative Government in 1972, is one of equal access to a common resource. That simply means doling out that common resource to other countries in the form of quotas, even though most of the waters—very fertile waters—to which access has been given are British. Such quotas constitute a very ineffective means of policing. That failure has culminated in the stark reality of the cuts that we now face. So there has to be a Xnasty guy" element in my speech.
	I accept that my hon. Friend was put in a difficult position. The main threat was to the cod, haddock and white fish that are in our waters and caught by our vessels, and for that reason he was on the defensive. However, as Fishing News argues, it seems that other nations were bought off. It appears that concessions were made to them in order to impose the main sacrifices on Britain. The list of those nations is long, and it includes Ireland. I should say in passing how appalled I was to see Ireland among that crowd of greedy predators. The Irish describe themselves as the friends of fishing, but that is a major betrayal. Ireland got away with no limitation on days at sea in the Irish sea, with another two years of subsidies, and with more herring quota.
	Hake was dropped from the Spanish stock recovery programme, which suited them. They, too, will enjoy two more years of subsidy and support for new investment in fishing, which will result in a lot of building in Spain during that period. France got the 80 mm mesh for saithe in the southern North sea, and 25 days at sea per month for vessels fishing with that mesh. They had already had a better deep-water deal than us.
	Denmark, the home of industrial fishing, was given 25 days a month for the purpose. All who have spoken today have described that as a major cause of the problem, a view echoed by the industry. I have a document prepared by Grimsby fish producers organisation. I think that I sent the Minister a copy; if not, I will send it to his Department hot-foot—or hot-fish. It says that the Danish and Norwegian industrial fishing fleets account for 20 per cent. of fish mortality. It is well documented that, in the winter of 2001–02, industrial fishing by-catch varied from 21 per cent. haddock to as much as 97 per cent. herring, and all that was illegal. As others have said, boats in Denmark have incurred the minimal penalty of not being allowed to put to sea for a month. As it was Christmas, they were not going to put to sea anyway.
	That was presumably a concession to the Danes. As for the Netherlands and Belgium, cuts in plaice and sole were reduced to 5 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. The result was that all those states could concur that the major cuts in fishing effort should be imposed on this country, which has left us in a messy situation. It has hit the vessels with the bigger mesh, which are the most effective for conservation purposes. Fishing effort will be diversified into smaller meshes when we want to increase mesh sizes. Vessels will rush out of ports and catch the maximum that they can catch as quickly as possible within their limited fishing period, and then belt back with little regard for conservation.
	We all indulge in nostalgia. There is a syndrome in the fishing industry which I call NITDIMW, or XNot If They'd Done It My Way". Those of us who believe that ownership of a nation's waters is the best guarantor of the protection and development of that nation state's fishing industry and of proper conservation think that, if we had not thrown that away in 1972, we would not be in our present position. The Scottish nationalists clearly think that a better deal would have been negotiated by an independent Scotland. I doubt that, because Scotland would have experienced the same pressures that hit the British Government.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is partly right. Of course there are pressures, and of course member states vote in different ways. Outcomes will be influenced by majority voting and blocking minorities. The situation is more complex, however. Some member states that have traditionally supported our view, such as Germany and Sweden, want a complete closure, while others—including Denmark—which have been hit just as hard as us on cod have supported the days-at-sea proposals. In regard to the Irish sea, for instance, we pressed for no effort control because our industry was arguing for that. As for saithe, we have a big interest in that on Humberside.
	What my hon. Friend described as concessions to other countries were actually measures that we wanted as well. The situation is not quite as simple as he suggests—although the way in which member states ally themselves of course has an influence.

Austin Mitchell: I accept that, but the fact remains that because of the white fish difficulty, the main problems were incurred by us. It is permissible to ask, as some in the industry have asked, whether France would have gone gentle into that good night if they had been in our position.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the all-party fisheries group and knows the answer to his own question. As he goes through the list of countries that have established fishing as a priority, he will realise what can be done. Surely he would never suggest that any Scottish Minister would have signed up to a common fisheries policy that regarded the Scottish fisheries as expendable? That is what the Conservative Government did in 1972.

Austin Mitchell: I accept that that is true. I have long regretted that fishing is not given the same priority in this country, as it is not considered economically important. An independent Scotland might not have accepted the 1972 CFP, but I doubt that it would have been able to put up a better and more effective fight than did the British Government of the time, in which English and Scottish Ministers worked together.
	In any case, there is no point wasting time on historical matters, however interesting. My argument is that the Government have accepted this settlement, and therefore must accept the consequences. They are that measures, mainly financial, will have to be taken to ensure that a viable fishing industry survives to inherit the benefits of what I hope will be more effective conservation.
	My hon. Friend the Minister will have seen the report from the Sea Fish Industry Authority on costs and earnings. It says that the average profit of the white fish fleet was 2.6 per cent. That is pathetic. The report states that 35 per cent. of vessels in the fleet were fishing at a loss, and estimates that the new measures would impose a further loss of #135 million on the fleet.
	An interesting table in the report shows the effects of various levels of profit reduction. Even the most minimal reduction would lead to 953 job losses in the whole UK on the catching side, and to 2,186 lost jobs on onshore industries. That is a total loss of 3,500 jobs, and a reduction in output, in financial terms, of #279 million.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts those figures. It is often argued that the fishing industry often poormouths itself, and I agree: it often presents itself with its trouser bottoms hanging out, saying that it is going bankrupt. However, all the conversations that I have had with fishermen show that this time they are facing a disastrous financial situation. They cannot go on without substantial Government intervention to help them financially.
	First, that help must certainly include a substantial decommissioning package. I disagree with other hon. Members in that respect, as it is clear that getting as many as 15 days at sea per month has required the acceptance of a 15 per cent. decommissioning package. Secondly, the quotas of the decommissioned vessels should be bought by the local producer organisations, so that they are kept in the locality. I hope that the Government will consider helping them with that, as many cannot afford to buy up quota in that way.
	Thirdly, there has to be compensation for the men who are losing their jobs. They are share fishermen, and so not entitled to redundancy. However, it would be appalling if we were to allow another scandal to happen similar to what happened with the failure to pay compensation to the Icelandic trawlermen. They were later deemed to be employed, but it took 25 years to come through. The fishermen involved are losing their livelihood, and some form of compensation—I accept that it would be an ex gratia scheme—must be made available.
	Two other things are needed as well. The first is operating support. It is a vexed issue, but vessels will not be profitable if they are allowed only 15 days at sea a month. Indeed, the Sea Fish Industry Authority estimates that 90 per cent. of the fleet will not be profitable in that situation. Therefore, there must be some support for the fixed costs that it incurs if it is to be kept going.
	The World Wildlife Fund has proposed what seems to me to be an eminently sensible scheme. It points out that this is an investment in the industry, not a subsidy, to keep it going. If we do not keep it going, other countries investing in their industries, giving support to their industries, will keep theirs going. Therefore, there must be a measure of operator support and there must be aid for communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) argued earlier. Last time it failed, because it went through the regional development agencies and not directly to fishing. It went on lighting schemes, new paving on seafronts, and all sorts of other things, but did not go to fishing. It needs to be directed to fishing.
	My hon. Friend the Minister must apply his very inventive mind and Department to other methods of support for the industry, which I hope would include paying fishing vessels to take scientists to sea, because the industry and the science are far apart.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) made suggestions about how the fishing and sailing skills of people in the industry could be used in other areas if we changed the regulations on the people on vessels in Scottish waters. Particularly for Scotland, that might sustain those skills for a longer period, until the fishing industry can use them again.

Austin Mitchell: I agree absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very valid and important point.
	We also have to face the problem of port and dock charges, which are quite substantial in this country, whereas in many of our competitor countries, fishing pays no dock charges. They are paid directly by the Government or the municipal authority. There are ever-escalating charges on the processing side. Our industry bears light dues, whereas European industries do not. It needs help with installing the satellite surveillance system, which was going to be financed by Europe, but now the industry has been asked to pay for it itself.
	Any way in which the industry can be helped in its current difficulties should be used. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is conversant with the problem. I hope that he will apply himself to developing a package for fishing that ensures that we have a viable fishing industry in three or four years, when the catches begin to pick up and we can inherit the future, to ensure that that future does not go to other industries whose countries are providing the support that we should give.

John Redwood: The Minister behaved extremely well in the debate, and I pay tribute to the intelligence and concern that he brought to all the issues and to the fact that he took so many interventions.
	I wish to make a few brief remarks in the spirit of trying to offer some constructive suggestions about how the position of this badly damaged industry could be bettered.
	I draw the Minister's attention, first, to the question of how much fish is wasted. We see from the European Union documents before us that 50,000 to 75,000 tonnes of whiting are known to be dumped every year. The figures on haddock range from 55,000 to 125,000 tonnes. If we multiply that by all the different species of all the catches and by-catches, we must be in the realm of well over a million tonnes of fish being crudely dumped back into the sea. That is an environmental disaster, a biological disaster and an economic disaster.
	I understand that the Minister wishes to wrestle with the problem, and I see from the good documentation before us that the EU, after these many long years, has at last made some suggestions that might begin to tackle the problem. I would ask the Minister to show a greater sense of urgency. I know that he has to work with 14 other member states and I know that the Commission often grinds very slowly when one wants it to do something—I attended enough meetings to find that out for myself—but there is much common sense on the side of those of us who say that we must stop this disaster in its tracks. We must be able to mobilise public opinion and ministerial opinion in the Community to do a better job.
	The documents are long and copious. The Minister knows better than I do the various proposals that have been made. It would be possible, for example, to land all the fish that are caught and find some economic use for them. People are prepared to buy smaller fish if they are cheaper than bigger fish. Sometimes they are prepared to pay a premium for smaller fish if they are attractive and can be cooked in different ways.
	We should certainly reconsider mesh sizes to ensure that fewer small fish are caught. There must be better guidance and systems of temporary control to deal with shoals of younger fish, which we need to protect to ensure that they can grow into bigger fish and to encourage recovery. We must be able to do something about the consequences of too much industrial fishing being undertaken, which is damaging so much of the seabed and the marine environment.
	I also hope that the Minister will have another go at the overall quotas. Those who said that they are not fair are quite right. That problem has been greatly exacerbated by the final dénouement of the open policy, bringing in many vessels from elsewhere. We are cursed with a common fisheries policy, but, fortunately, from the point of view of the Spaniards, French and the others, we do not have common policies in areas where we could benefit.
	Why, for example, do we not have a common wine policy, whereby we could supplement the grapes produced by our own wine growers with some of the higher quality grapes from Bordeaux? Perhaps we should have a quota. Why do we not have a common olive policy? We do not seem to grow many olives in Britain. Is it fair that the Spaniards and Italians grow so many but we do not have access to their resources, when they have access to the prime marine resource that we have brought to the Community, as we happen to have most of the important fish stocks and fish breeding grounds?
	I know that it is more difficult to reopen all the quota issues—I do not suggest that the Minister should recommend other common policies, given the failure of this common policy—but it is vital, for the sake of the communities that are facing decimation as a result of the changes, that we have another go. I remember visiting the English ports a few years ago and seeing the consequences of previous quota decisions, which had been extremely damaging.
	There has been a little bit of crude party politics in the debate, which is not particularly helpful. Many Liberal Democrat and Labour Members delight in saying that a Conservative Government first took us into the European Community and therefore that a Conservative Government first signed up to the common fisheries policy, but all those Members should remember that the 1974–79 Labour Government, supported for quite a long period by the Liberal Democrats, renegotiated our relationship with the EU and presented what they said was a much better solution to the British people in a referendum and the British people voted in favour.
	At that point, if not before, all the parties in the House—particularly the Labour party, but also the Liberal Democrats—effectively signed up to the whole deal, including the common fisheries policy. So I am afraid that the blood of the fishing settlements and fishing industry is on the arms and hands of all the legislators of all the parties that have supported that renegotiated package and our continued membership of the Community ever since.
	I have been a long-standing critic of the common fisheries policy. I was an unsuccessful critic of it in a Conservative Government, when colleagues did not agree with some of my views on how far we should go in demanding renegotiation. I was no more successful in trying to get the Conservative Government between 1995 and 1997 to accept my advice on this issue when I decided to return to the Back Benches and when I visited many of the fishing areas to see for myself the tragedy that was unfolding.
	In recent years, I have been much more successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was very sympathetic and changed Conservative policy on fishing in the light of the tragedy unfolding in the fishing communities and fishing industry. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is carrying on with the work that was commenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.
	I am not expecting the Government immediately to demand the fundamental renegotiation that the Conservative party now currently stands for and demands, but I hope that Minister will think again and see that for a long period, some 30 years, whatever party has been in power, our fishing industry has been in continuous decline, that far too much fish is being taken by vessels from other countries and that far too much damage is being done by the fishing techniques still permitted for a very precious marine environment off our coasts.
	This could be a great industry and fish are a vital natural resource. The common fisheries policy is proven to be an environmental, economic, social and industrial disaster. I hope that the Minister will follow up at least my ideas on making better use of the fish that are currently wasted and changing the rules on what kind of fishing is permitted because the wrong kind of fishing is coming in from outside. I hope that, one day, we will get cross-party support for the idea that fishing could be better regulated and controlled in Britain than by the EU.

Joan Humble: Usually when I rise to speak I say what a pleasure it is to engage in the debate, but unfortunately I find precious little pleasure in taking part in our discussions today. There is gloom not only among hon. Members but also in the fishing communities that we represent, with only a very dim light at the end of a very, very long tunnel.
	However, I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister on the efforts that he has made on our behalf, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) outlined, many people were fearful before the discussions at the end of last year and many of those fears have been allayed. Despite that, we should not underestimate the serious impact that the agreement will have on all our constituents. It was not as bad as we feared, but it was still a dreadful result for all too many of the fishermen we represent.
	Tomorrow, I shall meet representatives of the Fleetwood Fish Forum. I want to be able to offer them some hope and reassurance, but I find myself in a difficult position. What reassurances can I give them about this year, next year or the years to come?
	I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister assured us that he would look into an appropriate aid package. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: any economic assistance must bring positive benefits to our fishing communities. Such a package will have to include help with decommissioning, but it must also recognise that our fishing communities want to remain fishing communities.
	In Fleetwood, there is still optimism. On a recent visit to my constituency, my hon. Friend met representatives of the local fishing community who told him about the investment that they were making. He met Chris Neve who was investing in new vessels. That is positive. Many people hold out hope for the future, but they want reassurance that their investments are appropriate for that future.
	When I meet the forum tomorrow, I shall certainly ask its members to give me details of how the negotiated package will affect them in the future. I look on this debate as merely the start of discussions and give notice to my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall undoubtedly be writing to him after my meeting tomorrow to outline the concerns of my constituents.
	However, I can reassure my hon. Friend that Fleetwood fishermen understand the need for conservation. Over the past three years, they have taken an active part in the Irish sea cod recovery programme; they understand that, without conservation, there will be no fish.

Michael Weir: I am interested in what the hon. Lady says about her meeting because, tomorrow, I too shall be meeting representatives of fishing-based industries in my constituency. Does she agree that it would be useful if we could tell our constituents that there will be additional money from the Treasury for an aid package? Was she as disappointed as I was with the Minister's earlier answer on that point?

Joan Humble: I was not disappointed with the Minister's answer; I was pleased that my hon. Friend is considering the type of aid package that he outlined. I realise that my hon. Friend is at the start of negotiations and I shall do everything in my power to help him in his negotiations with other Departments and I look forward to an outcome that satisfies my constituents.
	The position of my constituents is rather different from that of people in many of the fishing communities that were referred to in the debate. There is no effort limitation in the Irish sea; Fleetwood fishermen are allowed to go out and fish, but they are not allowed to catch much when they do so. The context for any aid package for them will be different from that for Scottish and North sea fishermen.
	The Minister mentioned the nature of the Irish sea cod recovery programme, and it has been confirmed that the western Irish sea will be closed. I must remind him, however, that Fleetwood fishermen believe that the eastern Irish sea should also be included, as substantial cod stocks are to be found there. I know that his scientific advice disputes that, but I was told that in the first quarter of 1999, the model year used by the Commission, more cod was caught in the eastern Irish sea than in the western Irish sea. The Dutch and Belgian beamers that fish those waters, although they target sole, have a substantial cod by-catch. I am told that, last year, in area 7A, the Belgians had a sole catch of 674 tonnes and a cod catch of 283 tonnes. That is a considerable amount of cod. If cod stocks in the Irish sea are perilously low, we need to examine carefully the closed areas to make sure that we are protecting what cod is there, and other species.
	As I mentioned, Fleetwood fishermen are allowed to go out in the coming year, apart from in the closed areas, but they are deeply shocked at the level of the cuts in quota. The Minister agreed that there had been some recovery in cod stocks, which is what the fishermen tell me. They say that they enjoyed a good year last year in terms of catches, so they are seeing benefits from the cod recovery programme, although they moderate their remarks by saying that it is a slight recovery. They think that the 59 per cent. cod reduction, 55 per cent. haddock reduction and 56 per cent. whiting reduction imposed on them is not justified by the evidence that they see as fishermen in the Irish sea, and they are especially concerned about the 65 per cent. cut in plaice, as they tell me that the plaice stock is within safe biological limits. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider whether the scientific evidence justifies those quota cuts, and whether they can be re-examined?
	I also want to raise a technical issue with my hon. Friend. He will recall that I corresponded with him in 2001 about extending the Irish sea cod recovery programme technical measures up to 56° north and 7°30 west. Many Fleetwood men go up into the northern channel, and they were concerned that the nets that they use and the technical measures imposed on them changed once they had crossed over an arbitrary line in their fishing ground. My hon. Friend agreed, and the Commission changed the rules so that there was one set of EU rules all the way up to 56°. There is some confusion now about whether the technical measures applying to the Irish sea cod recovery programme still apply up to 56°, because there is an overlap with area 6A, where the effort control measures now apply. Will he consider that issue, so that I can reassure the fishermen of Fleetwood that, as they take their vessels all the way up into the northern channel, they are sailing under one set of Commission rules, not two?
	Finally, I want to reinforce the point that I made in an earlier intervention: it is vital that the voice of fishermen is heard in these discussions. I was pleased to read in the Minister's letter that we have all received today:
	XIn the Irish Sea, the 2002 cod recovery arrangements, including the closure of an area for a period in the spring, will be repeated. The Council envisages consideration of a more sophisticated effort control regime for all member states with vessels fishing the area concerned on the basis of a Commission proposal, which would be brought forward by mid-February, with the possibility of adoption by the second half of 2003."
	That is a chink of light and a glimmer of hope for the fishermen of Fleetwood who want to engage in constructive discussions about the future of any proposals for the Irish sea. Will my hon. Friend assure me that they will be included in the discussions about the future of the cod recovery programme? They feel that they have a lot to offer to the debate. I shall certainly do my best to represent their wishes. I conclude my remarks now to allow other Members to make their important contributions.

Alex Salmond: I return to the central paradox of the debate. We have heard that the Scottish Fisheries Minister—a similar point is made in the Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party amendments—accurately described the deal coming out of Brussels as unjust, unfair and discriminatory. He was thoroughly depressed. The Minister in this House agreed with that at certain points in his speech, but he also described the deal as the best-balanced process. We have even heard the word Xsuccess" used in terms of the outcome of the Brussels negotiations. If we have more successes like this, there will be no one left in the fishing industry to celebrate.
	The Minister, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I have debated these issues on innumerable occasions, and I have a memory for what people have said over the past few years. I could direct the Minister's attention to the debates on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 when he described an eight-day tie-up—not a 16-day one—as a betrayal. If an eight-day tie-up under the Conservative party was a betrayal, what is the 16-day tie-up that the Labour party has agreed to in these negotiations?
	I have other comments from the Minister in the debates of 11 years ago. It is excellent stuff. He said:
	XWe have long argued for an end to industrial fishing. The position is now so critical that our fishermen are being forced to tie up their boats in port compulsorily, and there is no longer any role for industrial fishing."
	That is what he said 11 years ago when he was facing the Conservative party.
	I have with me an industrial fishing net. It is like a hair net—absolutely nothing could get through such a net. Industrial fishermen fish in the same waters as other fishermen, but the Minister tells us that there is no real scientific back-up for an end to industrial fishing. Eleven years ago, he thought that there was absolutely no doubt about it. It could not be allowed to continue. It was unacceptable. There had to be an end to it. Eleven years later—for half that time he has been in office—we find that he believes that the science is ambiguous.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows me very well, because we have debated these issues for many years. I think that he will recognise that my remarks have always been consistent. If we are arguing for change in the face of deep-rooted opposition from other countries who do not believe a word that we are saying, we must have the evidence for our case. My problem—I shall be quite open about it—is that the evidence is not as definitive as I would like it to be. Nevertheless, the case is still there for tackling industrial fishing and its long-term consequences on the marine environment.

Alex Salmond: The only European Union country with a real interest in industrial fishing is the mighty state of Denmark, with its 5 million people. It attaches great priority to its fishing industry and was chair of the Council meeting. The mighty state of Denmark was able to resist all the other countries and sustain its interest in industrial fishing with the type of hair net that destroys the feedstock and the future of the fisheries.
	Even if industrial fishing was directed and did not result in a by-catch—such a suggestion is laughable—it would still destroy the ecosystem. One cannot destroy 600,000 tonnes of feedstock and sand eels from any marine environment without depressing the stocks of other fish. What do the cod, the haddock and the other fish eat? They eat material at the bottom of the food chain. Removing the bottom of the food chain removes the fish at the top. We do not need a degree in fisheries science to know that.
	As the Minister conceded, the pout fishery is not a directed fishery. The thousands of tonnes of small and tiny fish caught in the pout fishery represent millions upon millions of potential large fish. So 1,000 tonnes in the pout fishery is many thousands of tonnes in a human consumption fishery. It is unacceptable that in the human consumption fishery, fishing with 120 mm nets with square mesh panels should be limited to 15 days a month while in the same waters, a fishery used for pigfeed, poultryfeed and for drying pellets for animal consumption gets 23 days and virtually no restriction on quota. The Minister knew it 11 years ago and it is to his shame that he is not more forceful about it now, and that in his five and a half years as Fisheries Minister he has not demanded the research that gave him the base to argue for that at European Council meetings.
	The Minister made an excellent speech 11 years ago and I recommend he read it again. He said:
	XThere are other, more constructive ways of reducing effort than making boats tie up in port. Has the Minister considered arguing in the European Community for fishermen who use large mesh and receive a special payment?"—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 56.]
	The Scots fishing industry, using the largest mesh in the whole of Europe, does not get a special payment. We get a special deal of only 15 days a month if we are prepared to accept another 15 per cent. decommissioning on top of the 20 per cent. decommissioning that took place last year. That is certainly a special deal for the Scottish white fish industry, but not the right one. I hope that the Minister will read his speech again and find constructive ways in which to assist an industry that has been trying to pursue a conservation fishery.
	Of course there will be difficult negotiations, but the Minister's central failure is clear: it was not to extract the whiting and haddock quotas from underneath the cod quota and the recommendation. He had the evidence to do it in the groundfish survey, DEFRA's major annual survey. Incidentally, Mr. Fischler told me in December that he had never seen it—he thought that it was produced by fishermen. The Commissioner actually thought that the major DEFRA survey on fish stocks in the North sea was produced by fishermen and therefore discounted it.
	The DEFRA survey on spatial distribution shows no cod in many areas of the North sea but very substantial quantities of haddock and whiting. How on earth the grounds could not have been prepared to extract the haddock and whiting allocation and quota from the cod recovery plan or the emergency measures, goodness only knows. I say that it is because of lack of preparation, thought and concern.

Elliot Morley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the very good year class of haddock is based on the 1999 year class. The surveys since then, including the groundfish survey, show that recoupment has been very poor—in fact, some of the poorest on record. We must look at conserving the current haddock stocks and, in relation to mesh sizes, which the industry has agreed, minimising what has been an unacceptable discard rate, calculated at about 100,000 tonnes a year, of under-sized haddock.

Alex Salmond: Yes, and the Minister sat with me when I asked DEFRA scientists whether they had been setting a haddock and whiting quota as a stand-alone measure. They agreed that it would have been about a 20 per cent. reduction in quota. How on earth did we arrive at a situation in which the cod quota was reduced by 45 per cent., with the stock under pressure, haddock by 50 per cent. and whiting by 60 per cent.? The Minister should listen and use the arguments adduced by his own scientists. It should have been possible to extract haddock and whiting by geography and by time of year out of the cod emergency measures, and the Minister knows it.
	In addition, scientific voyages have taken place over the past year which, as the fishermen found out in November, had not even been presented as evidence to the European Commission at that stage. That research would have showed that, for whiting, up to 70 per cent. of escapes were of marketable quality. If fishermen are using 120 mm nets with square mesh panels, the haddock and whiting stocks are totally protected in that environment. The Minister is nodding. I hope that when he sums up he will be able to offer encouragement that trying to recover the ground that has been lost in terms of haddock and whiting will be a priority.
	We have heard a fair bit of the history of the common fisheries policy. It is important to consider that. With due respect to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and his selective interpretation of it, the history tells us how we got where we are. It may even tell us how to get out of this situation. National control is an excellent idea. It would be far better than the current arrangements. The problem is how we achieve it. Unfortunately, the series of negotiations that started in 1971 make that difficult. The release of a 30-year-old document has allowed us to see that the fishing industry was considered to be expendable in the context of wider British European interests. In 1983, the great Lady Thatcher, that anti-European, signed up for the quota allocation policy. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, the Maastricht treaty put the fisheries policy into treaty form. In 1994, the Spanish were allowed to rewrite their treaty of accession so that they could have early access to the west coast. The UK agreed to that on the basis of Spanish support for our opt-out from the single currency. On each and every occasion, fishing was traded away in pursuit of wider British European interests. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) did not satisfy us on how things would be different in the Conservative party of 2003.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was kind enough to explain that the evidence shows that if a country makes fishing a priority, it is able to extract concessions for their industry. Every other nation emerged from the Brussels talks with their industry intact although not totally undamaged. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) for her charity in providing me with a glass of water. It is definitely not good Scottish water. Even fish would find it difficult to survive in it. However, it has done the job and cleared my throat.
	Those countries in which fishing is a priority emerged from the negotiations with their industry protected. Only Britain emerged with our industry, or part of it, under mortal threat. The industry has to be offered the hope that something will be done to rebalance the disastrous package over the next few months, including in next month's negotiations on the more formulated cod recovery plan. The deal cannot be allowed to stand for any length of time. If it does, there will be no way around it. It will mean thousands of job losses and that is that. The industry must be given a sign from the Dispatch Box that there will be an attempt to salvage something from what is a total and utter disaster.
	In the meantime, a financial package should be provided to protect and keep intact the integrity of as much of the industry as possible. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) who said that decommissioning, even if it is a necessary tool of policy, does nothing for the economic fabric of the fishing areas. It does a great deal for the clearing banks, however. Most of the decommissioning money goes straight into them because they are the first line of credit. Some of it does not even pull the fishing businesses out of debt and often other creditors get no money at all.
	If the Minister believes that it is a balanced package and there is hope for the future, he should try to keep the industry intact so that it benefits from the recovery in stocks. A mere decommissioning scheme is not the answer. New money from the Treasury must be forthcoming. It will not be enough to rebalance existing budgets. I do not know about Blackpool and Fleetwood, but there is no huge surfeit of money in the enterprise budgets in north-east Scotland to allow the transfer of substantial sums into the fishing industry. The money simply is not there. The Treasury has to provide new money to keep communities intact.
	Fishing has been given low priority. The total number of UK jobs is not huge by comparison with many other industries. At the Scottish level, fishing has about 10 times that level of importance and jobs are concentrated in key areas. In Fraserburgh in my constituency, more than half the employment is dependent on fishing, In Peterhead the figure is pushing towards 30 per cent. The level is about the same in the constituency of at least one other hon. Member. Up the Moray coast, in Arbroath and down to Eyemouth, places that depend on the white fish fleet as a key part of their industry are gravely and totally in peril.
	If the Government did not give the industry the required priority in negotiations, at least it should be given priority in terms of an assistance package to tide it over until a better deal can be done.
	I have asked the Library about the common fisheries policy many times, over several years. I always get the answer that the only way we can get out of the CFP is to achieve unanimous agreement at a meeting of the Council of Ministers to renegotiate the treaty. There might be a strong argument for calling for national control, on the basis that it would put Commissioner Fischler into the position of having to make concessions. One concession might be to zone all management—a policy first advocated by the late Dr. Alan McCartney. No policy can survive when the country contributing the vast majority of its resource base is totally opposed to the policy's nature and direction.
	Although the Minister was not really supported by the Prime Minister in December—

Elliot Morley: I was.

Alex Salmond: The fisheries Minister says that he was supported. There was a last-minute telephone call to Fischler. The matter was on the margins of the summit agenda. If we had hired Rory Bremner to telephone Fischler, we could have achieved more. We should have got Rory Bremner to telephone him and say, XI am the Prime Minister. I think that fishing should have the highest priority." Or to say, as the French representative did to Fischler, that Chirac would be there on Friday morning unless the French industry got out from under—which it did.
	I have never doubted the Minister's knowledge of the industry but I wonder whether he was fully backed up and supported. When fisheries account for 70 per cent. of a country's resources, I do not understand how negotiations can be brought to a conclusion when that country totally rejects what is happening.

Angus Robertson: What optimism does my hon. Friend have that the Government will come up with a substantial aid package when the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be present at an important fishing debate? He is acting as a tour guide for the Prime Minister at a Labour party meeting in Scotland. Or when a debate—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Alex Salmond: I take my hon. Friend's point. Hopefully the Secretary of State is lobbying the Prime Minister as we speak. At least that is a face-to-face meeting, not a telephone call from the right hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister or vice versa.
	It is absolutely vital that the Minister realises that the package cannot be allowed to stand for any length of time because it aims a dagger at the heart of an aspect of the Scottish and Yorkshire fleets, which have survived flagging out but will not remain intact if the new measures are allowed to stand. And while a better deal is renegotiated, there must be a substantial package of assistance funded by new money from the Treasury, in giving the industry the priority that it deserves but to which it is certainly not accustomed.

Michael Jabez Foster: Representing as I do the largest beach-launched fleet in the whole of Europe, never mind the United Kingdom, the fishermen of Hastings are thankful that my hon. Friend the Minister has once again shown his commitment to their industry. They are grateful to him for listening and doing his best in the negotiations.
	Almost by definition, the under-10m sector comprises natural conservationists. The overall catch is minimal compared with the number of jobs dependent on the industry. It is not just jobs in fishing that are important to an area such as Hastings but also in tourism and related areas of employment that depend on the industry's survival. The fact that the under-10 m sector will be exempt from days at sea is a welcome concession, and is in marked contrast to the impositions made when the Opposition were in power and faced a similar crisis.

Jacqui Lait: I want to put that right on the record immediately, as I was the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. There was indeed a derogation from days at sea under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 which allowed boats under 10 m not to take part in the scheme.

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Lady knows better than I because she was MP for Hastings and Rye at the time, and I apologise to her if what she has just said is the case. Undoubtedly, local fishermen did not think so, otherwise they would not have hung her from the yard-arm before the 1997 election. The present derogation is certainly important and the Minister is to be applauded for achieving it. My constituents are concerned about survival until better times are with us. Recent decisions mean that they will not be too distant, although we have some way to go.
	My local industry has little interest in decommissioning and wishes to preserve its historic birthright—it does not want out, it wants a future. To be parochial, it is important that my local fleet has access to the reduced cod quota. At present, it has access only during the winter period, because that is when the fish are in the eastern end of the channel. Often by November and December, the quota for the whole channel is nearly exhausted. My hon. Friend has certainly made efforts on this, but has he made any progress on achieving a sub-quota for area VIId, which would allow the fleet its full allocation at the end of the year, when it became available naturally?
	We need to look at alternatives during the short period when the fish are returning. My local fishing industry has a side catch of spider crabs, an important delicacy in southern areas such as Spain and parts of France. Is there any opportunity to provide, for example, capital for holding equipment, so that such a catch can be exploited? There may be other opportunities as well.
	As hon. Members have said, financial support is needed while people get through these hard times. The Conservative proposals, some of which are quite outrageous, are not the answer. For example, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) made an outrageous suggestion, with which those on his Front Bench seemed to have some sympathy, when he said that markets should be opened up. He said that there should be opportunities for quotas throughout the market. That is simply not on. To suggest that my constituents should bid for their birthright is as objectionable as it is impracticable. That needs to be stated clearly.
	Most hypocritical of all, perhaps, was the Conservatives' suggestion that withdrawal from the CFP is a practical solution. In recent years, they have said that they would withdraw, then that they would not. Today, it appears that they are withdrawing again. My fishermen constituents are unequivocally in favour of withdrawal from the CFP, but they are unequivocally in favour of withdrawal from the European community anyway—there is no misunderstanding their position. The Conservative spokesperson refused to allow an intervention on the hypocritical proposal to withdraw from the CFP while leaving open the question whether the Opposition would seek to withdraw from the EU. I ask and hope that during the remainder of the debate, there will be some opportunity for the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman to say honestly whether it is their policy to withdraw unequivocally from the EU. That is the only possible way that they could withdraw from the CFP. In any event, fish do not carry passports, so it is within the EU that the answer must be found. We can achieve that and so much more through our membership.

Anthony Steen: First, we must all recognise that the Minister is Mr. Fish. If he were on XBrain of Britain", he would be able to answer every question about fish. Nobody knows more about fish. Secondly, he does his best. When he goes to Brussels, he negotiates as much fish as he can for Britain. There can be no doubt about that. However, under a system of quotas, he will always have to argue about how much is coming to Britain. He does his best, but it is never enough. The Scots, the North sea and the west country all want more. What is the Minister to do? All he can do is be a whipping boy. He comes to the Chamber every few months like a masochist. He gets beaten, goes off with his tail between his legs, and comes back for another performance. That is all he can do, as long as we have a common fisheries policy.
	The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), in his customary way, misunderstood everything that I proposed. I have a great affection for him and expect him always to misunderstand me. I suggested that we need a different system. As long as we have the old one, under which we come to the Chamber and argue about how much should go to Scotland, whether we should have more cod, whether the scientists are wrong, and whether we can have more crab, please, we will just go on arguing about it. The Minister will be benign and good-natured, and do his best. I have been going round the course for 20 years.

Peter Duncan: Although we cannot expect Labour Members to come round in the immediate future to our way of thinking on the subject of withdrawal from the CFP, surely even they must be made to admit that that cannot be worse than the situation currently facing British fishing communities.

Anthony Steen: I am always puzzled by the fact that the Government go on arguing. They must know that that is the scenario. I shall explore a different idea, if the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye will bear with me. I shall go slowly, so that he can understand the argument.
	The system already operates in New Zealand, Iceland and the Philippines. It sets a limit on the total available catch of any fish. Within that total catch, quotas are established, either by auction or by gift to incumbent fishermen, so incumbent fishermen get a share of the quota. The quotas are tradeable among individual fishermen. That offers an escape clause for some fishermen who are no longer able to operate economically. It encourages more successful fishermen to buy fishing rights and exercise their property rights responsibly by fishing within that quota and monitoring others to make sure that they do so, as well. It also encourages brokers to speed up transactions to allow environmentalists to enter the market and buy and retire quotas if they believe stocks are being overfished.
	I do not know whether such a scheme is the answer. All I know is that the present system does not work, so we must find some alternative. The anguish of the Scottish fishermen is understandable. I agree with them and with my west country fishermen. The situation will not get any better.
	Society wants to eat more fish. There is a recognition that fish is better for our health. There is also a recognition that there are 6 billion people in the world, and that that figure will rise to 12 billion by 2060, according to the scientists, although they may be wrong. Where will the fish come from to feed them and maintain their health? Perhaps one should take a Machiavellian view and say that we should all eat meat so that we do not live so long.
	I want to explore the topic of fish farms. I am concerned about the piece in the Daily Mail that hon. Members may have seen a few weeks ago, which said that salmon fisheries were poisoned and that the fish were being fed pellets which were not good for them and which were coming into the food chain. I am concerned about fish farms. If they are to be the future of the fishing industry, are we going to get rid of our boats and have fish farms for all types of fish? Are we then going to feed those fish with chemicals and colouring which will come into the food chain and which is bad for us? The Minister needs to look at that issue.
	If we are not going to change the common fisheries policy, are we going to have arguments like this every few months? Are we going to keep on coming back to the House and arguing that the Minister is not doing well enough? Or is he going to follow a new thought process about how we are going to produce more fish? Are we going to reduce the amount of fish by over-fishing and then develop fish farms, with all their consequent problems? I also wonder whether he is going to pursue the idea of an alternative approach to the quota system. Is there a proposal on the cards to change the other EU countries' approach to fish quota?
	I am always ready to give way to anyone who would like to intervene on me, but I do not want to let the Lib Dems in; they have had a good run already.

Peter Duncan: My hon. Friend invites my intervention, which I am happy to supply him with. Does he share my concern that one of the important issues that we have to address in this debate has not been addressed by the Government? That is the targeting and direction of the aid package that is to be provided for fishermen in Scotland. Does he support the motion that is being proposed by Struan Stevenson, the Member of the European Parliament—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is rather long for an intervention.

Anthony Steen: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has made an important point and I am sure that the Minister will wish to say something about it. I shall wind down now; I have made my points and I want to give other parties an opportunity to make a contribution.

Alistair Carmichael: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for giving me three minutes in which to say something about an industry that, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has pointed out, is responsible for one third of the economic product of Shetland, which is half of my constituency.
	I could say a great deal about the conduct of this debate and of last month's Fisheries Council. I shall restrict my comments on the latter to saying that it showed the old common fisheries policy at its very worst. It involved protracted negotiations at all hours of the day and night and the worst sort of horse-trading at the very end of the year. Would any other industry tolerate having its future determined in that way? Manifestly, the answer is no, and there is a good reason for that. It is because to do so is frankly crazy.
	The Minister has already referred to the new, improved common fisheries policy, and I sincerely hope that it is improved. It is very much on probation as far as I and my constituents are concerned. I was particularly pleased to see the retention of the six to 12-mile limit, the Shetland box, relative stability and The Hague preference. I was also pleased by the establishment of regional advisory councils. I am not suggesting for a second that they are a proper substitute for what we really need, which is regional or zonal management, but I accept that they represent a foot in the door. The fact that the councils will be answerable directly to the Council, rather than the Commission, is important.
	I hope that the Government will take a leading role in establishing the first of the regional advisory councils and ensure that they work, and that the industry is involved right at their heart. That is the basis on which the common fisheries policy will have to be built if it is to have any credibility. The councils must be able to ease the Commission out of its micro-management of fisheries, because that has been at the root of the failure. If ever there were a good example of that failure, it was last month's Council in Brussels, and the lead-up to it.
	I want to say a few brief words about the financial situation from here on in. It was not lost on me or other hon. Members that the Minister was asked directly whether there would be more new money from the Treasury but did not answer. There has got to be more money, it has got to be new money and it has got to come from the Treasury. We are in a dire situation and that is of the UK's making, so the money has got to come from the UK Treasury.
	How is the decommissioning going to be determined? In Shetland, there is a critical mass below which the community is no longer viable if we keep decommissioning. In a situation such as ours, once the fishing is lost, the people will be lost. Once they are lost, that is it—the whole economic fabric of the community will disintegrate. There has to be recognition that island communities have a particularly high dependency on fishing.
	We have been promised long-term benefits, and I am prepared to accept that we will get them if the Minister will see us through the short-term difficulty. In concluding his speech, he said that what was important was a sustainable fisheries policy. What we have got is simply not sustainable. It will not sustain the communities that I represent and that is what he has must solve.

Jacqui Lait: May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your office for extending this debate from the three hours that were allowed on the Order Paper until six o'clock? I hope that the Leader of the House will note that even more than four hours would be helpful in future fishing debates because of the sheer number of people who wish to contribute.
	I feel some déjà vu in returning to the issue of fishing. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned, 10 years ago, I made my maiden speech on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who intervened earlier and was the relevant Minister at the time, have pointed out that, in respect of the difficulties in which the Minister now finds himself, and on which he has been negotiating and responding so effectively to our concerns, he was arguing precisely the opposite 10 years ago.
	I should also like to pray in aid the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Banff and Buchan and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). I am sure that the latter has been involved in fishing debates for a very long time, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). All of us are very familiar with the arguments and hope that we will not have to repeat these debates for much longer, although we suspect that we shall.
	I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I cannot comment on all their speeches. Many heartfelt contributions were made. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—I have noticed that Fleetwood is in Lancashire, not Yorkshire; some Scots do not understand geography—and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) and for Hastings and Rye raised their concerns. I hope that the Minister got the message after an hour and two minutes. He is very generous with his time, and as somebody who has been doing the job for 10 years or more, he is certainly an expert and handled all the queries well. None the less, I hope that he got the message from everyone who has spoken about their worries on the crisis that is facing the fishing industry. The situation has been bad before, but after my experience on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, I never thought that I would say that an eight-day tie-up seemed very reasonable, as it does in comparison with a 15 or 16-day tie-up, which is what the fishing industry now faces.
	Before I entered the Chamber, I read the amendments that the three Opposition parties had tabled and was intrigued by the similarity in tone between the Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party amendments. Both parties picked up on the hapless Ross Finnie's words—Xinequitable, crude and unfair"—but there are other similarities. In the Scottish Parliament today, the SNP tabled a motion on Iraq, and I am advised that the Liberal Democrat amendment is no different in substance. Perhaps a new coalition is emerging in Scotland between the Liberal Democrats and the SNP. That means that the Labour party in Scotland could be in trouble, and we all look forward to that.

Hon. Members: Fish!

Andrew MacKinlay: Fish—and chips.

Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman may have had his chips soon.
	There have been many crises in the fishing industry in the past 10 years and many similar debates. The Minister has often responded to our anxieties about, for example, tie-ups and the need for conservation measures. He said that a proper package of conservation measures was needed and we have supported some of his proposals. Indeed, we argued for them for a long time.
	The Minister said that there should be full consultation with the fishermen's organisations. After 10 years, the message is precisely the same. The fishermen's organisations continue to claim that whatever they say, the Government do something contrary to their interests.
	Ten years ago, the Minister said that he supported greater co-operation between scientists and fishermen. Why, therefore, do such passionate disputes persist about the scientific facts? Today, he said that he believed that the need for such co-operation continued to exist. However, if one talks to fishermen—I spoke to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation today—they claim that they co-operate much more with scientists, especially in Aberdeen, than any other European fishing fleets. They find that science is quoted back at them and used politically against their best interests. It is sad that, after 10 years, the scientists and the fishermen still do not work together.
	As other Conservative Members pointed out, there is a lack of urgency in the Minister's approach to fishing. There is no drive behind getting the science and fishing properly integrated and presenting a clear message to the Commission.
	The debate has covered all the issues that affect fishing. There is much anxiety in all fishing communities and among almost all participants in respect of the package of help. We hope that a long-term conservation programme will allow the fleets to continue fishing. In the meantime, the Minister needs to make a genuine commitment to providing a package of help that will be in place from 1 February. Again, there was a lack of urgency before the Fisheries Council about preparing such a package.
	Nobody has mentioned that, on 28 February in Brussels, a Scottish Conservative Member of the European Parliament is holding a summit on fishing. He is working with fish scientists throughout the Community, the fishing industry and the processors to devise a resolution to present to the Commission and hence to the Council, demanding #100 million from the EU in compensation. It is interesting that the Prime Minister has invited fishermen to No. 10 on precisely the same day. Is there some coincidence? [Interruption.] It is clearly deliberate sabotage of a helpful measure to get #100 million from the Commission into the fishing communities.
	We have had an interesting debate, and I must agree that the Minister has been more than courteous in answering all our questions, but whether we are satisfied with those answers is another matter altogether. I doubt whether any of the fishing communities in Scotland, Lancashire or Yorkshire will be reassured by his saying that they have a future in the coming months.

Elliot Morley: I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) to the Dispatch Box on her first outing on fisheries. I believe that it is the first time that she has been involved in such a debate, and I certainly welcome her contributions and her courtesy. As she was involved in the previous days-at-sea scheme, she will know that it took a very different approach; it applied to the whole of the UK and to the entire industry. However, as I have said before, I do not dispute that there are problems, not least with administering such schemes. Indeed, I made that point to the Commission.
	On the alternatives, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made a strong case against quota control, but in doing so he simply played into the Commission's hands. The Commission advocated days-at-sea effort control because, in its view, quotas and traditional management methods have failed to deliver. All that he has done today is to give comfort to the Commission and credibility to its alternative proposals. The days-at-sea scheme is a possible alternative to quotas. It could deal with issues relating to discounts, and I have never been one to close my mind to different approaches.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) made a very good point about the various processes and about crew nationality. The latter point is certainly worth considering in some detail, and I shall do so. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned industrial fishing, as did several other Members. He made some very positive suggestions, including one relating to the Trevose grounds. We are advocating that suggestion to the Commission, and we want to pursue the issue in respect of closed areas as part of fisheries conservation. I was very pleased to learn of the support offered by his local industry.
	On mesh sizes, the chairman of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation presented me with what I suspect was an off-cut of the piece of mesh to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred. In turn, I presented it to the commissioner, in order to make the point about the impact of industrial fishing. The campaign will be ongoing, and other member states are indeed beginning to take an interest. That is what we need, because for many years mine has been the sole voice on this issue in the Council. Things are beginning to change, but we need the arguments to make the change that we are trying to achieve.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) discussed the impact on fishermen, and, as he knows, I take that issue seriously. He came to see me today to make the case for his fishermen, and we will consider what he said as we put together a package for the industry. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) discussed discards. It is indeed an important issue, and I have made it clear that we want to make progress on it. Of course, there are problems with any approach. For example, there is a case for landing all discards, but enforcement is a real problem. Norway and Iceland have a discard ban, but my colleagues in those countries concede that it presents real difficulties—unless one puts people permanently on board ships to ensure that, for whatever reason, they are landed. There are also dangers associated with targeting. Nevertheless, I rule out no particular approach, and discard bans have been mentioned as a possibility.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) mentioned the cut in plaice, and the overlap with restricted areas. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and sea fish inspectors will give her fishermen details on the rules and how they work, but if she has any queries, I am only too pleased to help.
	I recognise that the constituents of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, and of other Members, will be greatly affected, but I disagree with him in one respect. He said that there are problems with the settlement, and I do not disagree with that. I am not claiming that it is a huge victory or a great success; it will have severe consequences for the fishing industry. However, he did not touch on the issue that I cannot ignore: the scientific advice and the need to respond to it, and the effect in terms of mixed fisheries.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister deal with the question of haddock and whiting? He sat with the DEFRA scientists and me, and he knows that what I said was true. Can he get haddock and whiting Xout from under" the cod crisis?

Elliot Morley: We are doing our best to decouple the issues, as I said earlier. We cannot ignore the fact that in a mixed fishery the fish will be caught together, but I would be only too delighted to reduce the impact on those two stocks if it is possible to do so. I am prepared to explore possible methods.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) made some good points about his beach fleet. We are making suggestions to his local industry about differential cod quotas according to season that may address some of its worries. We will try that this year, and if it does not work we shall be willing to look again at decoupling. As for spider crab, there is a possibility of financial support through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance for marketing. I should be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is a veteran of these debates, and I always enjoy his speeches. I was interested by what he said about the New Zealand management system. The system has both strengths and weaknesses. As with all the issues we have been discussing, there is no perfect system: there is no system that has no disadvantages.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) welcomed the establishment of regional advisory councils, which I too consider important. I appreciate the potential impact of the settlement on Shetland and other fishing-dependent areas. These are predominantly matters for the Scottish Executive, who I know are addressing them.

Andrew MacKinlay: Bearing in mind direct rule, will the Minister make some reference to the impact on Northern Ireland's fishing communities? What assurances can he give those people? This is their Parliament now, and some attention should be paid to them.

Elliot Morley: I have been in touch with my ministerial colleague in Northern Ireland, and have also met Northern Ireland fishing representatives. We are trying to deal with their problems.
	I was interested by the contribution of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. In quite a long speech, yet again there was no suggested solution or alternative approach to the very real problems that we face. Not long ago, members of the hon. Gentleman's party were telling us that there was no way we would achieve relative stability after January, that there was no way we would maintain coastal limits, and that we would have an EU fleet with EU permits under EU control. None of that has happened in connection with the agreement on CFP reform.
	The idea that what we are doing in relation to quota management will allow more quota for other countries is complete nonsense. What we are doing is improving UK national quota for the benefit of the UK national fleet. We have heard what has been said today about national control many times. Yet again we have asked the Conservatives what that means, how it will be achieved and how it will be applied. I think it is a cruel deception of the fishing industry to suggest that there is a magic solution when there is not.
	The Conservatives have criticised the priority given to the fishing industry. We now know, as a result of the 30-year rule, what priority Conservative Governments gave the industry in terms of negotiation. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings says that we should have joined others to secure a better deal. I take it he means we should have joined Spain, which wanted access to the North sea. I take it he means we should have joined those who wanted to continue building grants, an entirely unsustainable solution to our problems.
	The truth is that when it comes to trying to negotiate in Europe, the Conservative Government are regarded as even more of an irrelevance than the Conservative party is today. It does not help the fishing industry to take a pompous little Englander approach based on Eurosceptic nonsense that is a betrayal of environmental responsibilities and the genuine needs of this country's fishing industry.
	There are real problems to address, but we believe that the industry has a future. We believe that we must respond to the science, even if it means tough decisions. We recognise that there will be consequences, but we will face up to them. We will work with the industry to give it a sustainable future, rather than making false and empty promises.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 2341/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required; European Union Document No. 2369/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector; European Union Document No. 2370/2002, a Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels; European Union Document No. 2371/2002, a Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy; and European Union Document No. 14886/2002, a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, I was obliged to point out that, yet again, a Minister had given information to the Press Association before bringing it to the House.
	Sadly, I have to bring a similar matter to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard it on my radio at 5 o'clock and it appears on something called a BBC website—I have a copy before me—and concerns a package Xleaked" to a BBC political reporter in which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills appeared to speak about a massive increase in student tuition fees.
	This is the second time that such a matter has occurred in one parliamentary week. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, be prepared to consider suspending the sitting until Mr. Speaker can be made aware that, for the second time, his firm instructions to Ministers have been casually disregarded and that a matter of such importance appeared on the BBC long before the House could have a chance to hear direct from the Minister responsible and to question that Minister? The point is of the utmost parliamentary gravity, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I ask you, therefore, to consider suspending the sitting until we can bring Mr. Speaker to the House to sort out the Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the grave concern that the right hon. Gentleman attaches
	to the matter and I give him my commitment that I shall personally make sure that Mr. Speaker is aware of the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's feelings.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Government that they might consider the benefits of tabling a substantive motion for the upcoming debate on the international situation, given the close vote in the Scots Parliament on just such a substantive motion this afternoon? Have the Government intimated the benefits of genuine democracy to the Chair ?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Ministers concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair and I have not been made aware that any Minister wishes to come to the House.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Natural Health Products

Hilton Dawson: It is an honour and a privilege to present a petition collected from 437 of my constituents in the excellent city of Lancaster and the fine town of Garstang who are concerned about a timely issue, given the debate that we shall be holding on Monday.
	The petition of my constituents states:
	The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters
	Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

PILGRIM HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Keith Hill.]

Mark Simmonds: I would first like to thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this Adjournment debate, which is of fundamental importance to me, as the democratically elected representative of the people of Boston and Skegness, to my constituents, and to all those other individuals who use Pilgrim hospital in Boston. I also thank the Minister for being here to respond to my comments this evening.
	Pilgrim hospital is the major provider of secondary health care in my constituency and the immediate surrounding area. As such, it plays a vital role in the community and serves a very large rural catchment population. Indeed, some calculations show that its catchment is greater than that of Lincoln and Peterborough—both of them cities that currently have larger hospitals. The catchment population of the Lincoln hospital is estimated to be 335,000, and that of Peterborough is estimated to be between 280,000 and 300,000. The catchment population of Boston and south Lincolnshire is approximately 400,000.
	Before I proceed further with the specifics, I would like to place on record my thanks and admiration for all the hard work that is done, day in and day out, by all those at Pilgrim hospital. I am aware that staff at all levels work as tirelessly and effectively as they can to provide a first-class service. That is in the context of a work force who are increasingly disheartened and a public who are increasingly disappointed as a result of the unattainable level of expectation to which the Government's announcements have given rise, and owing to a recent merger with Lincoln, which in many people's opinion is having a detrimental impact and effect on service provision.
	Pilgrim hospital first opened in 1972 and has 670 beds and a small, private wing called the Bostonian. The hospital and associated hospitals provide for approximately 35,000 in-patients, 12,000 day cases, and, depending on how the figures are analysed, up to 120,000 out-patients per annum. Pilgrim is by far the greatest contributor to those figures. It has a 24-hour accident and emergency department, and, currently, all the main speciality departments. As the Minister will be aware, a strategic service review is currently under way, which will assess the provision of services across the whole Trent region. Clearly, I recognise that every hospital in the region cannot provide every service. For example, the small hospital in my constituency at Skegness obviously cannot provide cardiovascular surgery.
	There are dangers in relation to encouraging and facilitating centres of specialism, however, particularly in large rural areas such as Lincolnshire. Some low-volume work may have high costs, both in financial terms and in terms of expertise. Some specialist centres will be needed, but it is essential that the specialist centres that are required are provided in Lincolnshire, not outside the county in Leicester or Nottingham. There is pressure from both Government and the royal colleges on consultants to deal with a certain number of cases per year, and that each consultant must deal with a sufficient number of cases to be safe and professional and to maintain a degree of expertise.
	That maintenance of professionalism and expertise, however, must be offset against considerations of travel and convenience. A balance must be struck. It is not compassionate or practicable to ask people to travel miles for basic medical care. Many of my constituents are not particularly affluent, and would find it impossible to get to Lincoln or Peterborough, never mind Nottingham or Leicester. The current state of rural transport in Lincolnshire is not conducive to ease of travel.
	The current situation in which Government targets are only being met by reprehensible list manipulation is unacceptable to me and to my constituents. Let me give the Minister a specific example. I understand that, if a Boston resident approaches a 12-month wait for an ear, nose and throat appointment, he or she is offered an appointment elsewhere—for example, in Lincoln—with no consideration of his or her ability to get to Lincoln. If that person refuses or is unable to make the appointment, he or she is struck off the list, thereby receiving no treatment but enabling the hospital and the trust to deal with the 12-month waiting list. I am not blaming the Minister personally for that, as I am certain that the practice takes place elsewhere. However, the Government must take some responsibility for applying such draconian pressure on hospitals and trusts to meet waiting list targets that they feel obliged to distort clinical priorities.
	It is no exaggeration to say that clinical directions have very little to do with clinical priorities. I would welcome the Minister's confirmation of his disapproval of, and distaste for, this practice. I hope that he will pledge to look into the matter, so that my constituents receive the health care that they need in the hospital that they deserve.
	Pilgrim hospital has a 98 per cent. bed-occupancy rate. Indeed, on my frequent visits to the hospital, including having participated on a night shift, I have been amazed by the constant crisis management that exists, shuffling patients around in an attempt to find beds. There are patients who are in accident and emergency who should be in medical wards; patients who should be in medical wards who are in surgical wards; and patients who should be at home who are in surgical wards. Some people should be in care homes, but several care homes have closed, primarily as a direct result of some of the policies that the Government have pursued.
	Those problems are coupled with the fact that Pilgrim hospital has only a day contract with the ambulance service—that is, between 9 am and 5 pm—and that means that the hospital staff can only arrange for patients to travel by day. On the surface, that may appear to be fine and acceptable, but the implication is that patients admitted at night cannot be sent elsewhere or even to their home. In some cases, they are treated because there is no ambulance. They have to stay in the ward overnight because they cannot get home. The nursing and other staff arrange for an ambulance to take them home, but there is a 24-hour booking time so they have to stay another night. That means two potentially unnecessary night stays in Pilgrim hospital, and that blocks beds for others. That is madness. The transport bill to transfer some people home by taxi must be horrendous, and an already horrendous bed-blocking problem is exacerbated. The implication is that significant numbers of operations are cancelled. Many are cancelled the day before and some on the day of the operation. That is not acceptable, and the position must be improved.
	It is my view that the Lincolnshire East Coast primary care trust is keen, like me, to retain local services for local people. I hope that the pressure will convince the trust to keep Pilgrim offering a full range of services. Any diminution of service would not be acceptable. Any removal of a specialism would be seen as a downgrading of the hospital. For example, I understand that conversations are going on about gastro-intestinal specialisms.
	I am also intrigued as to who will make the final decision after the strategic review reports. Will it be the regional health authority? Will it be the hospital trust? Will it be the public, whom I understand will be consulted? After all, what is the point of public consultation if the consultative process is ignored? If, as I understand it, the decision will be made at the last port of call—the regional health authority—will it not stand in complete contrast to the Government's supposed devolved decision-making policy and agenda for the health service?
	How does that decision-making process fit comfortably with the Government's plans for foundation hospitals? I very much hope that Pilgrim hospital will ultimately become a foundation hospital, with local decision-making and local accountability. It is ironic that, just as the Government, at least, superficially jump on the devolved power bandwagon, the reverse seems to be happening in Lincolnshire.
	I am ambitious for, and committed to, Pilgrim hospital. I want it to be empowered and enabled to have greater autonomy and decision-making authority. However, my constituents—both patients and those who work in the hospital—have expressed many concerns about the merger with Lincoln. They are worried not just about the immediate impact, but about the medium and longer-term relocation of specialist services. I understand that the merger has not only led to a large overspend but has been an expensive option, eating into resources that could and should have been used to improve front-line health care provision in Pilgrim hospital on behalf of my constituents.
	The merger with Lincoln has brought not just financial problems but actual service provision deterioration on the ground. For example, because of the assistance that was required in the form of staffing resources, waiting times for hearing aids in the audiology department in Boston prior to the merger were four to six weeks. They are now four to six months. A neonatal screening programme to test all children in Lincolnshire was due to begin in Pilgrim in early 2000, but because of the merger it was put on hold and may begin in 2004.
	The possible threat in reduction of service provision is causing anxiety among my constituents. Indeed, only last year there was a risk to the ear, nose and throat department when a distinguished and highly regarded consultant, Dr. Graham Westmore, retired. Many patients were unnerved and deeply concerned and there is still concern at the current provision that a seven-day service may be reduced to five. However, I am delighted that tomorrow I will be opening the new ENT department at Pilgrim hospital. I am delighted that this service provision has been cemented in Boston for many years to come.
	I am deeply concerned about security at Pilgrim hospital. To be blunt, I have been horrified by the anecdotal evidence from nursing staff in particular about the behaviour of some of the patients towards the hard-working and excellent staff. That applies particularly, although not uniquely, to those who work in the accident and emergency department. There is a particular problem with patients who have a drug or alcohol problem; they tend to be the most aggressive. The local police force have been extremely helpful and now have a presence in the hospital at particular times of the week. Will the Minister talk to his officials and colleagues in the Department of Health and the Home Office to find out whether any new source of funding could provide additional security—not only in Pilgrim hospital, as I am aware that this is a problem across the country? That could link in with the Government's new drugs policy which was debated in the House earlier this week.
	I am also perturbed and uneasy at the revelation that the West Lincolnshire primary care trust appears to have run out of money. I understand that there has been a significant overspend in primary care surgery and all future surgical operations such as hernias, eyelid cysts and vasectomies have been cancelled for this financial year. The scheme is to provide patients with more convenient and local treatment in a primary care setting, with the expectation of reducing travel and thereby patient transport costs and avoiding hospital visits. The cancellations are opposed by general practitioners who wish to continue with the scheme and also put pressure on an already overstretched Pilgrim hospital staff.
	I have with me an internal NHS document that lists the options regarding the overspend. The only item in the XAdvantages" column is that cancelling the operations
	XAvoids any overspend on this budget."
	The disadvantages are numerous. The document says that this will cause problems with the providers and patients at a time when Lincolnshire is promoting the development of primary care specialists. It says that some of the providers may withdraw. The third item in the XDisadvantages" column is fundamental and quite unbelievable. It says that there is no scope for undertaking the operations at the acute hospitals as they are unable to deliver their existing activity, let alone any extras. Another disadvantage, according to the document, is that the cessation of this activity could mean that some providers may become deskilled.
	That says to me that the myth being perpetrated that everything is fine in the national health service, that there is no shortage of money and that everyone is being treated where and when they want is clearly untrue. I do not expect an answer from the Minister this evening, but I would like him to talk to his officials and come up with an answer on how we can improve that aspect of health care, take the pressure off Pilgrim hospital and make sure that the operations that were being done under the remit of the primary care trust continue.
	In conclusion, I want my constituents to be provided with the best possible health care. I also want to continue to facilitate a motivated and enthusiastic work force at Pilgrim. I will not accede to proposals to remove or downgrade services under the auspices of specialisation or any other excuse. I trust that the Minister will assure me that that will not happen.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) on securing the debate. I am aware that he takes a keen interest in health issues that affect his constituency. Indeed, he initiated a similar debate in November 2001 on the future of Skegness district hospital. Having been schooled in Peterborough, I am familiar with the area, so it is good to play a role in the debate.
	I recognise the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to retain access to acute hospital services in their local area. All our constituents would be concerned about that. It is wholly understandable that they should demand modern, reliable and efficient services at a location that is convenient to them. I want to assure them from the outset that they need not fear for the future of their hospital or the future of the NHS under this Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hospital's finances, which I hope to deal with in a moment. However, he is at odds with his Front-Bench spokesmen who said that there would be a 20 per cent. cut in NHS investment.

Mark Simmonds: I have raised some serious issues. The Minister knows that it is not Conservative party policy to cut NHS spending by 20 per cent. May I suggest that he adheres his remarks to those serious issues?

David Lammy: NHS funding is an extremely serious issue. Labour Members voted overwhelmingly for investment in the NHS and I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have the best services available. I am pleased that our allocation to Boston primary care trust will rise by 8.6 per cent. over the next three years. I want them to get that investment and the facilities they need. However, given the hon. Gentleman's manner and tone on finances, it is right for me as a Minister to explain that they would be cut.
	Pilgrim district and general hospital has been providing services for the people of Boston and south-east Lincolnshire since the early 1970s. Since April 2000, it has been part of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS trust, when all acute hospital trusts in the Lincolnshire health authority area were merged. In the mid-1990s, the then Lincolnshire health authority reviewed services in the county. Among the recommendations proposed following the review was the transfer of ear, nose and throat services from Boston to Lincoln. I understand that that was not popular locally and the change did not proceed.
	The restructuring of health services in 2000 prompted a further wide-ranging review of clinical services in Lincolnshire. A formal review has been commissioned by the local health authority. That is due to be completed in March this year. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome but I understand that the trust wishes to see the Pilgrim continue its role as a vibrant hospital that provides a wide range of services. It may be that the outcome of the review sees some enhancement of facilities
	That position is borne out by the significant investments that the Government have made at the hospital in recent years. In 1998, a five-year capital programme was agreed to improve the Pilgrim. A total of #12 million has been invested, which facilitated the creation of a new accident and emergency department; the revamping of the outpatients department; two new theatres and two new wards; and essential repairs to the general fabric of the buildings.
	As part of the Government's Action On programme, there is United Lincolnshire Hospital NHS trust's bid for the creation of a new ENT and dermatology department at Pilgrim hospital. The Action On programme was developed in 1998 to target efforts to address areas of high waiting times. Four priority areas have been identified—cataracts, orthopaedics, dermatology and ENT—and specific programmes have been created. They are designed to ensure that local services are shaped around patients' needs, streamlining patient pathways and improving patient access. The programmes aim also at facilitating improvements in the quality of care through the dissemination of best practice—maximising efficiency, balancing capacity with demand and providing support to NHS staff.
	Under this Government, the ENT and dermatology unit became operational last year and will be formally opened by the hon. Gentleman tomorrow. I am pleased because across the country, people are seeing investment, new hospitals and new services in their communities. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are able to open new facilities in their constituencies. I am delighted and want that to continue—which is why I proudly stand here at a Labour Minister against cuts that would see services disappear.
	Those developments are indicative of the large investments that the Government are making in the health service. We are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live, has access to high-quality, modern and dependable NHS services. The Government recognise that for too long, patients in some parts of the NHS have not had access to the standard of care and treatment they deserve. Last week, we announced a further round of NHS capital allocations for the next three years. They show a growth of 31 per cent. for 2003–04, 14 per cent. for 2004–05 and 20 per cent. for 2005–06—the first time that day-to-day operational capital has been directly allocated to NHS strategic health authorities, trusts and primary care trusts and the first time that capital allocations have been made for three years rather than one. That arrangement will allow local NHS managers to plan for the future and make decisions about the services that they provide.
	Right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House take the view that the NHS cannot be run from Whitehall. We believe in shifting the balance of power, which is why we have localised the NHS, handing it to local communities through their PCTs—performance-managed by our strategic health authorities. I note that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that position. He would like greater centralisation and me to intervene in some local decision-making processes in his area.

Mark Simmonds: I did not say that and must correct the record. I certainly believe in devolving power to democratically accountable, decision-making bodies. I was trying to address the point that potential decisions about the future level of service at Pilgrim hospital will not be made by the people at Pilgrim hospital but by people in Trent regional health authority. That does not seem to fit comfortably with the Minister's view and mine that power should be further devolved, not taken away.

David Lammy: The decision will be made by local people, the strategic health authority and the primary care trust working in conjunction, and may well bring enhancements for the local hospital. It is about localisation, which we support, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman seems to support that. I urge him to let that process take its course. His constituents can take heart in the fact that the Government are committed to a modern, enhanced 21st-century NHS, which is why we are investing in his hospital, and why he will be able to open those ENT facilities tomorrow.
	The total provided for the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS trust is almost #34 million over the next three years, allowing it to continue its programme of modernising and improving its facilities. The hospital trust is predicting a deficit this year on its annual revenue budget, but I have been reassured that a recovery plan is in place and is being monitored by the Trent strategic health authority. That plan does not include the reduction of services—the trust is instead considering alternative and more efficient service delivery methods. That deficit needs to be set against Government investment. We have significantly increased funding. For example, East Lincolnshire PCT is to receive an increase of nearly 9 per cent. on its budget for the year 2003–04. We are changing the way in which funding is allocated so that trusts can plan for a three-year period and make provision for the future.
	The Government are keen to ensure that that investment is accompanied by reform. The NHS has delivered major improvements in health, but it falls short of the standards patients expect and staff want to provide. The NHS has to be redesigned around the needs of patients. As I have said, local hospitals cannot be run from Whitehall. The purpose and vision of the NHS plan, which was launched in 2000, is to give the people of Britain a health service fit for the 21st century which is designed around the patient. That change will improve the quality of care and affect how and where services are delivered across the NHS.
	High-quality care is not just about good outcomes, but about giving people the kind of services that they want. Local people are being placed at the heart of the debate about their local health services. A new legal framework came into force on 1 January 2003 which places new duties on the NHS to consult the public in the ongoing planning and development of services, not just when a major change is required.
	There are telemedicine links between Pilgrim hospital, Skegness and District hospital and other services that benefit the area. Those are just some of the ideas we have been exploring over the past few months as part of the work of the configuring hospitals project. I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that there seem to be real opportunities for smaller hospitals in particular to have a new lease of life, with service redesign and networked health systems offering the potential to deliver the kind of local health service that local people want.
	We will shortly publish a document for consultation. I repeat that there is definitely a bright future for Pilgrim hospital. Any future developments there will be at the forefront—
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock.